beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff asserted that he/she was killed in the Defendant on August 5, 1950, his/her father’s net B (hereinafter “the deceased”) (hereinafter “the deceased”) was killed in the Korean War on June 25, 1950, and that he/she received the disposition of rejection, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition of rejection as the Suwon District Court 2016Gudan2353, but was sentenced to the judgment of dismissal of the Plaintiff on July 21, 2017, and appealed against this, but the judgment became final and conclusive on December 14, 2017.
B. On May 4, 2018, the Plaintiff again filed an application for registration with a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State (bereaved family) by asserting that the deceased was killed in the Korean War, but the Defendant rendered the instant disposition rejecting the said application for registration on the grounds that the specific and objective records relevant to the death of the deceased on November 5, 2018, which could be recognized as the cause of combat action or the performance of duties in relation thereto, do not constitute the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State (the soldier or policeman killed in Action or who died on duty) and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation (the soldier or policeman killed in action
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Deceased was killed in the Korean War around August 1950 on August 5, 1960 while serving as a police officer of the Seongdong-gu Police Station, and was killed in the battle on August 5, 1960, the Deceased’s Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “the Act”) around the contrary.
(2) Since it is apparent that the instant disposition constitutes a person eligible for veteran’s compensation under the Act on Support for Persons of Distinguished Services to the State and Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation (hereinafter “Act”), the instant disposition is unlawful. (2) Chapter II of the instant disposition against the Plaintiff, to which the Republic of Korea belongs to the Defendant, is against the Plaintiff.