1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the following contents are added under the 59th sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary Part] The plaintiff asserts to the effect that, as the deceased was hospitalized in a police officer on February 6, 1951 and returned to the police officer on July 1951, 1951, the deceased was employed in a intelligence unit for a period of time during which he was hospitalized in a hospital by suffering a total of the deceased, and that, if the deceased was hospitalized, the period of time should be included in the period of service subject to compensation under the Act on the Compensation for Special Child and Child Compensation. According to the plaintiff's assertion, the time when the deceased was killed in the line of duty. The time when the deceased was killed in the line of duty from March 6, 1951 to December 31, 2002, it does not constitute a special mission belonging to a military intelligence unit, and the military unit belonging to the deceased did not constitute a special military unit for a period of time during which the deceased was discharged by the deceased, it is not sufficient to view that the military unit was discharged from the military unit subject to compensation under the Act on the Compensation for Special Child and Child Compensation.

2. The plaintiff's claim should be dismissed as it is reasonable.

The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.