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 filed an application with the Defendant for the payment of compensation by asserting that he/she was bound by the Army intelligence team and had performed a special mission from December 1, 1950 to November 1, 1952.

B. On February 28, 2017, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for payment of compensation on the ground that “the Plaintiff was confirmed to have not performed a special duty in the intelligence unit in Korea.”

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the Defendant, but the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on July 25, 2017.

[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. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff carried out special duties, such as intelligence repair, search, inspection, etc. with respect to the enemy forces from December 1, 1950 to November 1, 1952, such as being injured in the course of the kidnapping operations of the People’s Forces during the jacking of the Army.

Although there are a number of evidence proving that the plaintiff performed the special duty during the above period, the defendant's disposition of this case was unlawful since the disposition of this case was made based on the statement that the defendant's investigator B fabricated without disregarding it.

B. Determination 1) Although the court of the lawsuit of the administrative litigation is not bound by the fact-finding of another administrative judgment, the facts recognized in the relevant administrative judgment already established are significant evidence in the relevant administrative litigation. Thus, barring special circumstances where it is difficult to adopt a factual judgment of the relevant administrative judgment in light of other evidence submitted in the relevant administrative litigation, the facts opposed thereto cannot be acknowledged. In particular, even though the two administrative litigations are the same as the facts that form the basis of the dispute, it is more true in cases where a new claim can be made as a result that does not conflict with the res judicata effect (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da92312, Sept. 24, 2009).