1. The part concerning the conjunctive claim in the first instance judgment shall be revoked.

2. The Defendant limited to the Plaintiff on April 27, 2017.

1. The scope of the judgment in this Court primarily sought revocation of the disposition to deny the registration of bereaved family members of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State, and revocation of the disposition to deny the registration of bereaved family members of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State. The first instance court

Therefore, since the plaintiff appealed only to the conjunctive claim among the judgment of the court of first instance, only the conjunctive claim is subject to the judgment of this court.

2. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the mother of the deceased B (C) (hereinafter “the deceased”).

B. On June 1, 2014, the Deceased served in the Marine Corps D with the Marine Corps N in Incheon E, who was in charge of the Marine Corps as Staff sergeant of the Navy, and from March 4, 2016, the Deceased served as the Marine Corps E (hereinafter “the instant Jin”) from the said Air Team E (hereinafter “the instant Jin”).

C. At around 04:20 on August 18, 2016, the Deceased: (a) stored the flames of K-1A rifles in its own drafting; and (b) launched one ball cartridges, and died into two sections of the joint guns.

On December 30, 2016, the Plaintiff applied for the registration of bereaved family members of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the Defendant. However, the Defendant, following the deliberation of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement, determined and notified the Plaintiff on April 27, 2017, that “the deceased does not constitute a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State or was killed in the line of duty and a person eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “person eligible

[The part determined and notified by the deceased that he/she does not constitute a person eligible for veteran's compensation (the "disposition of this case"). [In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is, while serving as the first-class department in the front air defense area located in F, suffering from extreme stress due to accumulated skin, the Plaintiff’s execution of the first quarter leave in March 2016 is over two times and during that process, the quality of the Ministry of the Public Administration and Security.