보상금환수처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. A. Around 2006, the Plaintiff filed an application for the payment of compensation to the Defendant, stating that the Plaintiff constitutes a person who performed a special military mission under the Act on the Compensation for Persons of Special Military Missions (hereinafter “Specialized Employment Compensation Act”) and the Enforcement Decree thereof constitutes a person who performed a special military mission under the Enforcement Decree
B. Around June 2006, the Defendant recognized the Plaintiff as a person who performed a special military mission and determined to pay KRW 115,964,060 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant decision on compensation”), and paid the Plaintiff compensation at that time.
C. On September 25, 2012, the Defendant decided to cancel the instant decision on compensation and recover all the compensation already paid pursuant to Article 2(1) and Article 18(1) of the Act on the Compensation for Special Residents and Article 4(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Compensation for Special Child, on the ground that the Plaintiff was confirmed to have served in the nivers, ordering, and nives of the Air Force special stage, which is a military intelligence unit, or as a support employee who did not perform a special mission.
(hereinafter “Prior Disposition”) D.
On December 5, 2012, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the instant prior disposition, and the Seoul Administrative Court rendered a judgment revoking the instant prior disposition on July 26, 2013 on the ground that “Evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to readily conclude that the Plaintiff is not a person who performed a special military mission, and no other evidence exists.”
(Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Guhap40971, hereinafter “Prior Case”). The Defendant filed an appeal against the judgment on the prior case on August 13, 2013, but revoked ex officio the prior disposition in this case on the grounds that the prior notice was omitted on May 27, 2014 and the opportunity to present opinions was not given. The Seoul High Court revoked ex officio the prior disposition on July 22, 2014, on the ground that “the defendant’s ex officio revocation led to the lack of interest in the lawsuit and thus, became illegal.”