1. The Defendant’s decision to dismiss the claim for compensation made against the Plaintiff on January 24, 2017 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 30, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for payment of compensation with the Defendant based on the Act on the Compensation for Persons who performed Special Military Missions (hereinafter “Special Child Compensation Act”), asserting that “the Plaintiff entered the Army HID unit at the time of the Korean War and performed a special mission.”

B. On January 24, 2017, the Defendant rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s application for payment of compensation (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s performance of special duties or received education and training in the intelligence unit of Korea is not verified” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an application for reexamination to the Defendant, but the Defendant dismissed the said application on the same ground.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered the Army HID First Zone (hereinafter “instant unit”) around the time of 1952, and performed a special mission during the period from springing to the early summering of 1953. As such, the Plaintiff constitutes a person who performed a special military mission under the Act on the Compensation of Persons of Special Services for the Aged.

The defendant's disposition of this case made on a different premise is unlawful.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. In light of the judgment, there is no objective evidence that the Plaintiff entered the instant unit in around 1952 and received education and training as an intelligence assistant, and there is no objective evidence that the Plaintiff engaged in the act of infiltration. No statement was made by a person objectively confirmed as working in the HID No. 1 in support of the Plaintiff’s work in the instant unit.

However, in full view of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff received education and training in the intelligence unit of this case and conducted special trees, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 5, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 4, and 5 (including paper numbers) and the purport of all pleadings: