1. Of the instant lawsuits, the part seeking confirmation of invalidity of the disposition of the selection of veterans and the implementation of the decision of the history of Germany’s manipulation.

1. As to the claim for compensation for damages, the Plaintiff’s father L, the father of the Plaintiff, died in school around August 1950, and caused damage to his family members, including the Plaintiff, due to the annual ties, such as employment, refusal of study abroad, failure of various examinations, defamation, etc., and thus, the Defendant is obligated to compensate for the damage. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, since there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

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, an appeal litigation shall be allowed only when the interests protected by the relevant administrative disposition are infringed by law

(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 and C as a national 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 interests protected by the Plaintiff were infringed by the said disposition. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for this portion is unlawful as

3. Under the current Administrative Litigation Act, a lawsuit seeking a performance judgment ordering an administrative agency to take a certain administrative disposition or a court seeking a judgment seeking a formation decision having the same effect as an administrative agency rendered a certain administrative disposition is not allowed with respect to the pro-Japanese liquidation and re-misunderstanding of history.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu3200, Sept. 30, 1997). The Plaintiff’s claim on this part constitutes a lawsuit seeking performance of obligations not permitted under the Administrative Litigation Act, and thus, is unlawful.

4. The conclusion seeks to confirm the invalidity of the disposition of the selection of veterans among the instant lawsuit.