2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

A. On April 30, 1998, the Plaintiff entered the Army on September 19, 1997, and was discharged from military service on July 31, 1998, when serving as noncommissioned officers. The Plaintiff was diagnosed as “surgical renal renal renals, high blood pressure, and high blood pressure tension (hereinafter “instant wounds”) and was hospitalized.

B. On July 1, 2005, the judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim was finalized on January 23, 2008, on the ground that there was a causal link between the Plaintiff’s military service and the instant wound (Seoul District Court Decision 2006Guhap1864, Jun. 19, 2007).

C. 1) Article 23(1) of the former Military Pension Act (amended by Act No. 11042, May 19, 201) (hereinafter “former Act”) (hereinafter “former Act”).

(2) On May 19, 2011, the former Act was amended to the effect that the provision on the payment of pension for wounds to soldiers whose disability became final and conclusive after retirement from office due to a disease or injury incurred in the line of duty does not coincide with the Constitution, and thus, the former Act was amended to the effect that the provision on the former Act shall continue to apply until the legislators amended on June 30, 201 (the Constitutional Court Decision 2008Hun-Ba128, Jun. 24, 2010). (2) The former Act was amended to the effect that “not only when a soldier retires from office due to a disease or injury caused by official duty, but also “if the soldier becomes disabled due to the disease or injury after retirement,” and was enforced from the same date until he/she dies (hereinafter the former Military Pension Act (amended by Act No. 10649, May 19, 201; hereinafter referred to as “Article 23(1)2 of the former Military Pension Act”).

The defendant's decision on the provisional payment of a pension for wounds in the first place and the decision on the cancellation of the pension for wounds in the first place is 1.