1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 21, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for payment of compensation, etc. with the Defendant on the ground that the Plaintiff constitutes a person who performed a special military mission under Article 2(1)2 of the Act on the Compensation for Persons of Special Military Missions (hereinafter “Specialized Persons Compensation Act”) pursuant to Article 10 of the same Act.

(hereinafter “instant application”). (b)

On October 27, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision dismissing the instant application on the ground that “the Plaintiff confirmed that he/she served as a volunteer in the military intelligence unit, but did not perform any special mission required for determining persons eligible for special military missions under Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Compensation for Persons of Special Services, the Defendant decided to dismiss the instant application on the ground that “the Plaintiff was subject to non-compensation pursuant to Article 2(1)2 of the same Act and Article 4(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.”

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

On December 16, 2015, 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 rejected the application on February 28, 2017 on the ground that “the Plaintiff confirmed that he/she served as an active duty assistant in the military intelligence unit, but did not perform a special duty, or received training, under Article 2 of the Act on the Compensation for Special Child, and Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 4 and 5 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion was issued to the C commander of the B unit who was in charge of the counter-North Korea intelligence activities from June 195 to March 2, 1956, while living in the military for about 20 years from 1948 to 1965, dispatched from September 10, 1955 to the C.R.D.G. personnel of the US Army from March 2, 1956, and completed counter-education. The plaintiff's assertion was issued to the C commander of the B unit who was in charge of the counter-North Korea intelligence activities for about four years from March 1956 while serving as the transfer officer in the Army Team.