In an appeal litigation seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition, a disposition agency may add or change other grounds only to the extent that the grounds for the original disposition and basic factual relations are deemed identical.

Here, the identity of the factual basis is determined based on whether specific facts prior to the legal evaluation of the grounds for disposition are identical in the basic point of view, and such factual basis is not allowed to be asserted as the grounds for disposition on the grounds of a separate fact that is not recognized as identical with the basic facts.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Du8827 Decided December 11, 2003, etc.). According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the defendant accepted the defendant's assertion that the defendant's application for a re-determination physical examination of the plaintiff was made on the ground that "this case's wound does not meet the criteria for disability ratings under attached Table 3 of Article 14 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State," and the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim.

However, according to the legal principles as seen earlier, the reason that “the symptoms cannot be deemed to have been fixed due to the completion of treatment” committed by the Defendant in the course of a lawsuit is that “the degree of disability does not reach the grade criteria” is a separate reason not related to the original reason for disposition, and it is difficult to view that the identity of the original reason for disposition and the factual relations is recognized, and therefore, it is not permissible for

Nevertheless, the court below, based on its stated reasoning, found the disposition of this case lawful by recognizing the new grounds for the disposition. The court below's decision is an additional modification of the grounds for disposition.