1. The defendant's appeal against the primary claim shall be dismissed;

2. The defendant's appeal against the conjunctive claim.

Although the purport of the defendant's appeal regarding the primary claim is unclear, it is argued that the defendant's appeal against the primary claim is not clear. However, it is reasonable to view that the court of first instance appealed about the primary claim as "a claim for cancellation of the above two dispositions is simple and combined," and as long as "the court of first instance cancels the judgment and dismissed the plaintiff's claim" is stated in the purport of appeal.

On the other hand, whether the claim for cancellation of the above two dispositions is a primary preliminary relationship or a simple consolidation relationship, or the first instance court dismissed the claim for cancellation of the decision corresponding to the requirement of a person of distinguished service to the State, so it is judged that the defendant has no benefit to appeal.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal against the primary claim is unlawful.

[A] The Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State and the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation separates persons who have rendered distinguished service to the State, depending on whether the performance of duties or education and training primarily causing the death or wound is directly related to national defense, national security, or the protection of people’s lives and property. Thus, a claim for revocation of a non-competent disposition against a person who rendered distinguished service to the State on the ground that the person meets the requirements for a person who has rendered distinguished service to the State falls under the requirements for a person who has rendered distinguished service to the State should be deemed as incompatible with the person who has rendered distinguished service to the State at the same time. Such claim for revocation of the two dispositions should, in principle, be deemed as having a primary reserve relationship that mainly claims for revocation of a non-competent disposition against a person who has rendered distinguished service to the State (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Du46577, Aug. 25,