1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part concerning the claim for compensation shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3...

From July 1, 1968 to January 6, 1969, the reason and content of the disposition were assigned to the naval maritime inspection team, and the plaintiff was on board the ship B and was on duty as a radio operator.

On May 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the payment of compensation under the Act on the Compensation for Persons who performed Special Military Missions (hereinafter “Specialized Employment Compensation Act”) for the following reasons.

On September 19, 1967, the Plaintiff participated several times in the operations of UDU personnel who are ordered to work for a maritime inspection team, which is a naval intelligence unit, leading North Korean workers to the coast, and participated several times in the operations of UDU personnel who are engaged in the operations of UDU personnel who guide North Korean workers to the coast. In order to ensure that North Korean psychological team can arrive at the coast of North Korea, the Plaintiff joined several times in the operations of North Korea.

On November 16, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s application on the ground that “the Plaintiff is confirmed to have served as an assistant in the military intelligence unit, but it is confirmed that there was no fact that the Plaintiff performed a special mission recognized as a person eligible for special military missions under Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Compensation for Persons of Special Services.”

(2) The Plaintiff’s assertion of the purport of the entire argument of the Plaintiff as to the disposition of this case was based on the following facts: (a) there was no dispute; (b) Gap’s evidence 1, 2, and 6; and (c) Eul evidence 2; and (d) the Plaintiff did not provide the Plaintiff with general matters, such as the period for filing an application for reexamination; and (c) did not prepare the protocol of statement in the retrial procedure; and (d) the Plaintiff did not have an opportunity to submit additional vindication or materials to support its assertion during the retrial procedure; and thus, the instant disposition was procedurally erroneous.

The plaintiff worked in the maritime affairs team of the Navy from November 1, 1967 to April 1, 1969 and performed the special duties related to North Korea.

The plaintiff, especially around 1968, participated in the training and transportation operations of personnel (UDU personnel) who guide the North Korean wave workers on board the ship B.