1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. On November 21, 2013, the Defendant issued a new pension payment disposition against the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

B. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on each of the above parts is as stated in each corresponding column of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

C. Determination 1) Article 26(1) of the Military Pension Act and Article 4 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that “if a soldier died in the line of duty due to a disease or injury incurred in the line of duty, the bereaved family pension shall be paid, and “the death caused by the performance of official duty” means “the death caused by the performance of official duty.” In order to perform his duty, a disaster that occurred during his/her workplace and work place in the manner and manner constitutes an accident in the line of official duty under the Military Pension Act, but the accident that occurred during his/her work in the course of his/her workplace and work place constitutes an accident in the line of official duty. However, if it cannot be deemed that his/her deviation from the usual route and method was exceeded, or that his/her deviation was his/her minimum act to return to his/her workplace rationally, it does not constitute an accident in the line of official duty (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu16121, Nov. 24, 1998). Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion and its purport should be deemed as unlawful.