The litigation of this case shall be dismissed.

The litigation costs for retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff (the plaintiff in retrial).

claim, purport of claim,

1. The following facts, which have become final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial, are apparent or apparent in records in this court:

A. On February 15, 2005, the Plaintiff performed special duties eight times on the following grounds: (a) on February 15, 2005: (b) on the part of the Seoul Administrative Court 2008Guhap 17257 case; (c) on the part of the Defendant’s infiltration into North Korea via the East Coast, one vessel on which two enemy-guns are aboard the sea in the Geum River basin; and (d) on the part of the Defendant, by spreading one vessel on the sea of the Geum River; and (d)

In this regard, it applied for the payment of compensation in accordance with the Act on Compensation for Special Duties Executors.

2) After the Defendant deliberated on the Plaintiff’s compensation, it is recognized that the Plaintiff served in a military intelligence unit for the aforementioned period, but cannot be recognized that the Plaintiff performed education, training, and duties related to the performance of special duties. On November 27, 2007, the Defendant issued a disposition to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim for compensation.

3) On April 22, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking revocation of the disposition of the Seoul Administrative Court No. 2008Guhap 17257, the Plaintiff, but on October 31, 2008, the Plaintiff was ordered to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim and filed an appeal for objection on July 24, 2009 (Seoul High Court Decision 2008Nu3401), but the appellate court was sentenced to the dismissal decision on July 24, 2009 (Seoul High Court Decision 2008Nu3401), and the appellate court was also dismissed on October 29, 2009 (Supreme Court Decision 2009Du14330). (B) On February 26, 2016, the Plaintiff performed a special duty of appointment of the Army unit B as the military unit for the Defendant on February 26, 2016.

In this regard, it applied for the payment of compensation in accordance with the Act on Compensation for Special Duties Executors.

2) On April 25, 2017, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for payment of compensation on the ground that “the Defendant is confirmed to have performed special duties or received education and training” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

1) The Plaintiff is an applicant for a new trial.