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 February 26, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that he/she performed a special mission while serving as a staff member of the Army Unit C District from April 1952 to April 1955, and applied for the payment of compensation in accordance with the Act on the Compensation for Persons who performed Special Military missions.

B. On April 25, 2017, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for compensation on the ground that “the Plaintiff was found to have performed a special mission or received no training.”

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the Defendant, but the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on August 29, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff worked as a staff member of the Army B attached C District from April 1952 to April 1955, the plaintiff completed the special official training course of the Army Special Information Team at the Army. There is also a official work record stating that D members, etc. who actually performed special duties as at the time were born two enemy members and destroyed one motor vehicle. The plaintiff was awarded the Order of the Dan Telecommunication Order as a contribution to performing such special duties.

In light of the above, although the Plaintiff directly driven the Brt and carried out a special mission, such as an enemy hijacking, etc. over six times in the operations area, the Defendant issued the instant disposition based on the statement of witness F, etc., operated by the investigator E belonging to the Defendant, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. Although the court of the lawsuit of the relevant legal doctrine No. 1 is not bound by the fact-finding of another administrative trial, the facts recognized in the relevant administrative trial that has already been established are significant evidence in the relevant administrative litigation.