1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff is the spouse B.

B. B entered the Navy on March 7, 1981 and died on August 11, 2016 as the naval commander, and the Plaintiff stated that “B (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) rest in the mission in consideration of the situation of major North Korea, etc. even during the summer vacation period, and was reported to the mission, around 14:59 on August 11, 2016, and died from the C national highway as a traffic accident on the same day at around 22:00 on August 14, 2016.”

C. However, on May 26, 2017, the Defendant rendered a non-specific decision (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the grounds that all the requirements for the police officer killed in action and the police officer killed in action on duty and the police officer killed in action (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

(Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against it, but dismissed on April 17, 2018). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 1 through 5, and Eul evidence 16, respectively.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the deceased used the formal leave in a situation where the conflict between South and North Korea occurred, but continued to stay in the mission and received a report on duties from the crew. In light of the fact that the ordinary deceased used the bicycle and carried out patrols frequently, it constitutes the requirements for soldier or policeman who died in the line of duty because the accident occurred during the patrol of the National Highway of the D leaflet, which is within the operational scope of the D leaflet and the National Highway of the Y-si. Therefore, even if the deceased was in transit over 09:0 to 18:00, which is the summering time of E village, the time limit of E village’s down to 09:0 to 18:00, the time limit of E village’s down to 22:00, the accident occurred during which the deceased returned to the mission subject to a report on duties, and thus, it constitutes a person eligible for veteran’s compensation who was at least a person entitled to receive the report on duties.

B. The evidence duly admitted prior to the facts of recognition reveals Gap evidence No. 10, and Eul evidence No. 6.