1. The plaintiff B's lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff A's claim is dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. C was serving in the Army on September 21, 2006, and was found to be dead by using the d Support Headquarters for the Army Welfare Work Support Group D on April 6, 2008 and the sprinks for the support of sprink trees after the sprinking of sprinks.

B. A, the father of the deceased C (hereinafter “the deceased”), applied for registration as a bereaved family member of a person of distinguished service to the Defendant, but the Defendant registered the Plaintiff as a bereaved family member of the deceased’s person of distinguished service to the State on April 19, 2013 on the ground that the deceased did not meet the requirements for persons of distinguished service to the State but falls under the requirements for persons of distinguished service to the State (persons of distinguished service to the State).

C. On March 19, 2015, Plaintiff A applied for the registration of bereaved family members of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State again to the Defendant. On June 12, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of a change in registered matters (hereinafter “instant disposition”) and non-conformity of the requirements of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State according to the result of the deliberation of the Merit Reward Judgment Committee that it is difficult to recognize that the deceased died in the course of performing duties or education and training directly related to national defense, security, or the protection of the lives and property of the people.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. With respect to the legitimacy of the Plaintiff B’s lawsuit ex officio, the Health Team and the Plaintiff B filed an application for the registration of bereaved family members of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State to the Defendant.

There is no evidence to deem that the Defendant made a decision on the eligibility of a person who rendered distinguished services to the Plaintiff B, and instead, the fact that only the Plaintiff A applied for the registration of bereaved family members of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State and that the Defendant rendered the instant disposition to the Plaintiff is identical as seen earlier. Therefore, there is