1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

Pursuant to Article 16-3 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc.”) that was amended on December 29, 2015 and enforced on July 1, 2016, and Article 27-3 [Attachment 5-5] subparagraph 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27753, Dec. 30, 2016; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State”).

On October 25, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition with the Defendant to the effect that “No reason exists to deal differently with the cases where the bereaved family’s death year is 197 and 1999,” the Plaintiff shall not be subject to [Attachment 5-5] Article 27-3 [Attachment 5-5] of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State, which prescribes different amounts of the instant allowances, and even if the bereaved family’s death year is 197, the Plaintiff shall pay the same amount of allowances.”

On October 27, 2016, the Defendant responded to the purport that Article 16-3(2) of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State stipulates that the payment of allowances shall be made by Presidential Decree, and accordingly, Article 27-3 [Attachment 5-5] of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State shall be differentiated from the payment of allowances, and that in each case, there is a difference in the payment of allowances, taking into account

(hereinafter referred to as "the Disposition in this case". 【No dispute over the ground for recognition', and the defendant's judgment on the ground of the whole purport of the statement and pleading No. 2, the defendant asserted that the lawsuit in this case is unlawful, since the defendant merely respondeded to the plaintiff's civil petition and did not take a disposition that is the object of administrative litigation.

However, according to the above facts, the Plaintiff’s civil petition purported to request the Plaintiff to pay the same amount of allowances as the case where the death year of the bereaved family was 1997, and the Defendant’s refusal thereof.