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

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion as follows. Thus, this Court’s reasoning is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. The addition;

A. The Plaintiff asserted that, if the Defendant conducted ex officio reexamination without delay after February 11, 2010, which was the date of the Plaintiff’s completion of treatment, before the amendment was implemented, the Plaintiff may obtain a judgment of disability grade 3 by the previous notification. However, the Plaintiff’s failure to conduct reexamination and the Plaintiff’s determination of disability grade 4 by applying the revised notification to the Plaintiff is illegal and unjust.

However, (i) In principle, an administrative disposition should be made based on the law in force at the time of the disposition. In light of the fact that when the disposition standards are changed due to the amendment of the law, an administrative agency should apply a new disposition standards at the time of the disposition instead of the law at the time of application, unless the administrative agency accepts an application and delays processing and changes the disposition standards between them (see Supreme Court Decision 84Nu77, May 22, 1984, etc.), unless there is any evidence suggesting that the defendant neglected the obligation to conduct an ex officio reexamination within a certain period after the date of completion of treatment, the defendant's disposition cannot be deemed unlawful. Then, the period during which the defendant could have been able to conduct an ex officio reexamination pursuant to the previous public notice from February 11, 2010 to February 19, 2010, which is the date of enforcement of the revised public notice. Thus, the defendant's assertion that the defendant did not implement ex officio reexamination within the short period prior to the enforcement of the revised public notice is without good cause.

B. In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that, under Article 2 of the Addenda to the Public Notice of Amendment, “where disability grades fall without any change in the condition of disability in reexamination, the previous provision shall apply.” In this context, “no change in the condition of disability in reexamination” refers to a case where the physical disability condition occurs before the public notice of amendment enters into force (if the physical disability condition occurs after completion). The Plaintiff asserts that, prior to the implementation of the Public Notice of Amendment, the date of completion of the physical disability falls due to reexamination after the completion of the physical disability condition, the public notice of the disposition in this case shall be applied in accordance with the foregoing Addenda.

However, in light of the literal content and purport of the provision, the above supplementary provision is interpreted to mean that the previous public notice should apply to the protection of beneficiaries when disability grade 2 through 3 even if the previous public notice is applied, even if disability grade 2 through 3 is reduced if it would not have been reduced if it had been re-examined by the previous public notice due to the lack of physical disability condition. Therefore, even if the previous public notice is applied, the plaintiff's assertion on different premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Gangnam-gu (Presiding Judge) Lee Dong-ho