2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On July 30, 2014, the Plaintiff (B) filed an application for the payment of special disability consolation benefits pursuant to Article 8 of the Act on the Compensation for Persons of Special Military Services (hereinafter “Specialized Child Compensation Act”) with the following grounds: “Around November 1961, the People’s Corps and combat forces were punished on the part of the Geong-gun, Geong-gun; (b) the injury was inflicted on the part of the Geong-gun (hereinafter “the injury of this case”); and (c) the bodily disability was inflicted on both sides of the Y-gun, which was caused by the said injury.”

(hereinafter “instant application”). (b)

On June 27, 2017, the Defendant dismissed the instant application on the ground that the instant application falls under the sediment disease in the field of the dog gymnasium near each other, which is the physical handicap of the Plaintiff’s assertion.

hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"

(ii) [Ground of recognition] unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 (including branch numbers if any); hereinafter the same shall apply).

each entry, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff had been aware of the fact that he was recognized as a person who performed a special military mission on October 28, 2005 and received compensation, etc. pursuant to Article 6 of the Act on the Compensation for Persons of Distinguished Services, etc., and the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement recognized that the plaintiff was " wounded in battle" under Article 4 (1) 4 of the former Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (amended by Act No. 9079 of March 28, 2008; hereinafter "former Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State"). Considering the fact that the plaintiff had no injury on the part of the plaintiff before receiving the diagnosis of the YMM on the part of each party after the injury in this case, it is reasonable to deem that the injury in this case led to the occurrence of the plaintiff's injury that there was an injury on the part of the YM that occurred in the part of each party.

Therefore, the plaintiff is a person who suffered physical disability in the course of performing his/her special duties.