1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s father B (hereinafter “the father”) entered the Army on July 24, 1952 and served as the waterworks team.

On July 14, 1953, the Deceased was killed and wounded and was hospitalized in the Gun Hospital on July 17, 1953, and was discharged from active service on December 10, 1953.

B. The Deceased died on April 14, 1957 following his discharge.

C. On September 4, 2002, the Plaintiff filed an application for the registration of bereaved family members of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the Defendant on September 4, 2002, inasmuch as the deceased’s participation in the Korean War, who was killed in the 625 War and was cut to the left of the Republic of Korea due to a testamentary gift, and caused the death of a person who died in the military

On January 18, 2003, the head of the Defendant’s Office of Patriots and Veterans Affairs rendered a non-applicable disposition against the Plaintiff as bereaved family members of the State (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the deceased cannot be recognized as a deceased person due to a war or a wound in the performance of his duties corresponding to this.

E. On August 26, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the head of the Seoul Administrative Court seeking revocation of the instant disposition (Seoul Administrative Court 2003Guhap9350), and the Seoul Administrative Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on the grounds that there is no evidence to support that the deceased died due to a wound during his/her duty.

F. Although the Plaintiff appealed, the Seoul High Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on March 30, 2007 (Seoul High Court 2005Nu21318), and the Plaintiff appealed, but the Supreme Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on July 2, 2007.

(Supreme Court Decision 2007Du8553). [Grounds for recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 14, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserts as follows.

(1) A claim against the Administrator of the Office of Patriots and Veterans Affairs for the cancellation of the instant disposition is unlawful, and thus, the instant disposition should be revoked.

(B) Claim for damages against the head of the Defendant’s Office of Patriots and Veterans Affairs.