1. Of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff excluded the Plaintiff’s claim for compensation for damage amounting to KRW 90 million from the part of the claim that was added at the trial.

1. As to the claim for compensation for damages, the Plaintiff’s father L, the father of the Plaintiff, was killed in the case of the news association as of August 1950, and his family members, including the Plaintiff, suffered damages due to the annual ties, such as the Plaintiff’s refusal to find employment, study abroad, failure to pass various examinations, defamation, etc., and thus, the Defendant is obligated to compensate for the damages KRW 100 million. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this, the Plaintiff’

2. An appeal litigation filed against an administrative disposition that does not exist with respect to a claim seeking confirmation of invalidity of a disposition of selection as a veterans is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du5317, Sept. 28, 2006). In cases of a third party who is not the direct party to an administrative disposition, only when the interests protected by the relevant administrative disposition are infringed by the law, and is entitled

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du19496, Jul. 23, 2015). In addition, there is no evidence to acknowledge the existence of a disposition that selects B, M, and C as a State veteran’s pension, as alleged by the Plaintiff, and even if all materials submitted by the Plaintiff were collected, it is not recognized that the Plaintiff’s interests protected by law were infringed by the said disposition. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for this part

3. Under the current Administrative Litigation Act, any lawsuit seeking a performance judgment ordering an administrative agency to take a certain administrative disposition with respect to the remaining claims or any lawsuit seeking a formation judgment seeking a formative administrative disposition having the same effect as having taken a certain administrative disposition by an administrative agency is not allowed;

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu3200, Sept. 30, 1997). The remainder of this part of the Plaintiff’s claim is unlawful because it falls under a lawsuit for performance of obligations that are not permitted under the Administrative Litigation Act or its purport is not specified.

4. As such, the instant lawsuit excludes the claim for compensation for damage.