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 asserted that the deceased was killed in the 6.25 War as a policeman, who participated in the 6.25 War, and was receiving medical treatment on August 25, 2005 at the left-hand buckbucks, and filed an application for registration of bereaved family members of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State. However, on February 9, 2006, the defendant sustained an injury during combat.

It decided that the deceased does not constitute a person of distinguished service for the reason that there is no objective evidence to prove that the deceased died due to injury.

B. On August 24, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for the registration of the Deceased as a person of distinguished service to the State. On January 21, 2016, the Defendant rendered a non-specific decision on the requirements for persons of distinguished service to the State (the instant disposition is conducted under the following) on the grounds that there is no change in circumstances to reverse the previous disposition following the resolution of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

A. At the time of the June 25 War, the Plaintiff asserted that the deceased participated in combat and died while serving in the left-hand bucks, and in this regard, the certificate of merit was received on July 20, 2015, and the certificate of career with respect to the deceased was also indicated as the cause of retirement as the cause of death, and the date and time of the deceased’s death recorded in the family register was corrected on April 15, 1953 as the date and time of the actual death. In light of the above facts, it was sufficiently proven that the deceased constitutes a soldier or policeman killed in action.

The instant disposition based on the different premise is unlawful, even though it was based on the different premise.

B. (1) According to the evidence Nos. 1 through 13, the Plaintiff asserted that on August 25, 2005, the Defendant was killed while taking part in the Korean War as a police position and receiving treatment by suffering from a total amount in the buckbucks, etc. during the battle, and filed for registration of bereaved family members of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State.