A. B entered the Korean War on December 30, 1950, resulting in injury to the preferential retirement register, and was discharged on August 12, 1951 after receiving hospitalized treatment at the Hospital No. 18 on June 1, 1951.

And B (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) on September 20, 197, the Plaintiff and his children, who were his spouse, left 4 South and North Korea (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) and died (the age of 46).

B. On October 16, 2013, C, the Plaintiff, visited the Military Manpower Administration and confirmed the military register register. On the military register register, “D” among the name B of the deceased, was erroneously recognized as “E” and was recorded as “F”, and the prize and decoration materials were managed as “G”.

C. Accordingly, on October 17, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of the deceased, and received a decision from the head of the Seoul Northern Branch on February 3, 2014 that the deceased constitutes a soldier or policeman wounded in action under the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State”), and on May 27, 2014, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of a physical examination for classification of disability rating 7th 415 on the ground that “the person subject to the restriction on his/her employment latitude due to a special injury in the family, the degree of injury, and the degree of disability” constituted “the person subject to the restriction on his/her employment longitude due to a serious

The Plaintiff filed an administrative litigation seeking the revocation of the grading disposition on the ground that “the deceased is unable to walk without a stick after staying home, and cannot sit immediately, and it constitutes a highly functional disorder.” However, on April 10, 2015, the Plaintiff was sentenced to dismissal of the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that “the deceased may be recognized as having suffered from a wound, but there is no evidence to confirm the degree of specific injury, treatment details, etc.” from the Seoul Administrative Court (2014Gudan13723).

In addition, the above judgment was finalized on May 7, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 8 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s negligence is attributable to the employee of the Defendant.