1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is performing a special mission under the control of 101 intelligence units of the Army from January 1, 1951 to September 1, 1952, and the military unit of the Army No. 4863 unit of the Army.

The defendant filed an application for compensation with the defendant by asserting that he was missing.

B. On October 27, 2009, the Defendant dismissed the application for the payment of compensation in accordance with Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act to the effect that there was no evidence related to the performance of a special mission against the Plaintiff, and that B had worked before the creation of a intelligence unit as a result of the external investigation of the person who performed a special duty against the Plaintiff, such as the person who performed a special duty against the Plaintiff, the person who performed a special military mission, and the reference witness, etc., constituted before the establishment of a military intelligence unit and engaged in a shock, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

C. On November 16, 2009, the Plaintiff appealed and applied for reexamination against the Defendant, but the Defendant dismissed the application for reexamination on the same ground on February 10, 2010.

【Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The attachment to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be as specified;

3. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion (i) Article 3 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act excludes those who had been engaged in a special mission before March 6, 1951 from compensation. The provision of compensation criteria after March 6, 1951, which established the time limit for compensation for the first time August 15, 1948, is inconsistent with the legislative intent of the Act stipulating the time limit for compensation, and it is against the principle of equality that excludes those who had been engaged in a intelligence activity as a member of the intelligence unit and who had been engaged in a intelligence activity before March 6, 1951, on the sole ground that the date of the activity is prior to the said date.