1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, who is the deceased B (CB; hereinafter “the deceased”), filed an application for the payment of compensation with the Defendant pursuant to Article 10 of the Act on the Compensation for Persons who performed Special Military Missions (hereinafter “Specialized Child Compensation Act”) on the ground that the deceased falls under a person who performed a special military mission under Article 2(1)2 of the same Act (hereinafter “Specialized Child Compensation Act”).

(hereinafter “instant application”). (b)

On March 9, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision to dismiss the instant application on the ground that “the deceased was an officer status falling under Article 4(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Compensation for Persons who performed Special Military Missions (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Compensation for Persons who performed Special Military Missions”) and it was confirmed that there was no fact that he performed a special mission, and thus was decided to be eligible for non-compensation pursuant to Article 2(1)2 of the Act and Article 4(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Compensation for Persons Specially

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the Defendant pursuant to Article 13(1) of the Act on the Compensation for Special Child, but the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s above application for reexamination on July 25, 2017 on the ground that “The deceased was confirmed to have served as an active duty support personnel in the military intelligence unit, but it was confirmed that there was no special duty under Article 2 of the Act on the Compensation for Special Child and the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Compensation for Special Child and Child Compensation.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On March 31, 1951, the Plaintiff asserted that he was appointed as an officer, and worked as a special unit in the HID Information Unit of the third group in Yang-gu, Yang-gu, Gangwon-do. In light of the time of the deceased’s special military unit’s work, it is reasonable to deem that the deceased was not merely an employee as an active duty support personnel but as an employee of a special military unit who performed special duties or received education and training. However, the Defendant’s disposition of this case on a different premise is unlawful.

(b).