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

This court's reasoning is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for supplementing or adding the judgment as follows 2, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Supplement and addition of judgments;

The Plaintiff asserts as follows. The Plaintiff did not receive a notice from the Defendant on the instant disposition and the procedures for objection thereto, and only received a notice on the determination of disability grade as to the instant disposition from the Defendant’s website, and in the process, the guidance on the determination of disability benefits stating the guidance on the procedures for objection to the instant disposition was not confirmed. Accordingly, the Plaintiff requested revocation of the instant disposition to the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, which was not the Public Official Pension Benefit Review Committee, not the Public Officials Pension Benefit Review Committee. Accordingly, this constitutes a case where the Defendant, an administrative agency, was not notified or mistakenly notified of the procedures for a request for a trial, and the Plaintiff submitted a request for a trial to another administrative agency pursuant to Article 23(4) of the Administrative Appeals Act when calculating the period for a request for a trial, the administrative appeal shall be deemed to have been filed. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a request for an examination of the instant disposition within 90 days from the date when it became aware of the instant disposition, and thus, the instant lawsuit was lawful. Even if the Plaintiff did not have any justifiable reason, it could not be filed within the period for a request for review.

In full view of the facts acknowledged by the first instance judgment cited by this court, evidence Nos. 6, 10, 11, and evidence Nos. 5, 6, and 7, as well as the overall purport of images and pleadings, the Plaintiff, as a document attached thereto, was issued with a guide for determination of disability benefits (Evidence No. 7) stating the procedures for requesting a review from the Defendant’s website around July 10, 2017, and filed an administrative appeal seeking cancellation of the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on August 21, 2017, stating “the date on which the Plaintiff became aware of the disposition” as “the date on which the disposition became known” was indicated in the column of “the objection procedure notification by the Korea Administrative Appeals Commission” and submitted the determination of disability benefits attached thereto as evidence. In light of this, it is reasonable to find the Plaintiff’s ground for appeal No. 1631, Jul. 10, 2017.

(1) The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s assertion that “in the course of appeal to the Central Administrative Appeals Commission,” “in the course of filing an administrative appeal to the Central Administrative Appeals Commission,” was erroneous in indicating that the Plaintiff’s perception and ability to make a judgment was deteriorated due to satisfic and satisfic and satisfic and satisfic, etc., but it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff’s perception and ability to make a judgment was deteriorated at the time of filing an administrative appeal on

3. Conclusion

Thus, the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed as it is unlawful. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is just with the conclusion, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges Kim Dong-ok (Presiding Judge)