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 March 13, 1972, the Plaintiff entered the Korea Navy, and was on July 18, 1977, from around October 10, 1977, when serving in the sixth brigade of the Navy, and a mental fission was generated on or around October 25, 1979, and the Plaintiff was discharged from military service on April 30, 1980.

B. On June 24, 2010, the Constitutional Court rendered a ruling of inconsistency with the Constitution, stating that Article 23(1) of the former Military Pension Act (amended by Act No. 6327, Dec. 30, 200, and amended by Act No. 10649, May 19, 201) provides that “A soldier whose disability became final and conclusive after his/her retirement from office due to a disease or injury in the line of duty shall not be in conformity with the Constitution if there is no provision regarding the payment of a pension for wounds,” and that “The former provision of the Act shall continue to apply the provision until the legislative amendment as of June 30, 201.”

C. According to the above decision of inconsistency with the Constitution, the Military Pension Act amended by Act No. 10649, May 19, 201 added “when a soldier becomes disabled due to a disease or injury caused by official duty after retirement” to the subject of a pension for wounds under Article 23(1) of the Military Pension Act.

On January 2015, the Plaintiff filed a claim for a pension for wounds with the Defendant. On March 11, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision that the Plaintiff is ineligible for the beneficiary of a pension for wounds (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”) on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s disability status was fixed before May 19, 2011, as Article 23 of the Military Pension Act was amended.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The instant disposition should be revoked on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful.

1. The decision of inconsistency with the Constitution regarding Article 23(1) of the former Military Pension Act is rendered, and accordingly, the Military Pension Act was amended on May 19, 201 and the retirement is disabled as a result of a disease caused by official duties, and the disease is caused by the disease after retirement.