1. In an appeal seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition, a disposition agency may add or modify other grounds only to the extent that the original and basic factual relations are recognized identical to those of the original and original grounds for the disposition. The identity of the basic factual relations in this context is determined based on whether the relevant basic social factual relations are identical in the basic point of view, based on the specific facts before the legal evaluation of the grounds for disposition is legally assessed. The reason for interpreting that it is not allowed to assert the grounds for disposition on the grounds of a separate facts that are not recognized identical to the basic factual relations lies in ensuring the other party’s right to defense of the administrative disposition, thereby realizing the rule of law and protecting the other party’s trust in the administrative disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Du18565, Mar. 9, 1999; 2003Du8395, Dec. 11, 2003).

It is not identical to the original reason for the disposition.

(2) On December 14, 1992, 2001Du8827 delivered on December 11, 2003, etc.). 2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court, based on the adopted evidence, found the Plaintiff’s active service as a communications soldier and received a chest examination and treatment by showing the negative chest and respiratory distress during the so-called outdoor charging training as of January 2, 2004, and again, took a hot scarcity during the check of the communications line on October 3, 2004, and took a scarcity from the National Armed Forces Capital Integration Hospital to the right-hand end of October 12, 2004, and from the left-hand end of November 2, 2004, the Plaintiff was discharged from 198 after being discharged from active service, and the Plaintiff was discharged from active service on March 3, 2004.