1. As to the plaintiff's assertion that there is no or unfair validity of a personnel order for the invalidation of an official position

The lower court determined that the act of appointing the Plaintiff as a noncommissioned officer, despite the grounds for disqualification, is null and void as the act of appointing the Plaintiff as a noncommissioned officer is automatically null and void, and thus, the appointment is null and void even if there was no separate disposition, and even if the notification of the concept was given to the Plaintiff and the notification of the invalidation of the appointment was 17 years after the date of noncommissioned Officer’s officer’

In light of the relevant legal principles, the lower court’s determination is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation

2. Regarding whether a soldier or policeman was a soldier or policeman

A. Article 4(1)6 of the former Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (amended by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016; hereinafter “Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc.”) provides that a person discharged from military service or retired from military service by suffering from wounds in the performance of duties or education and training directly related to national defense and security or the protection of people’s lives and property (including diseases), whose disability has been determined as a disability rating in a physical examination conducted by the Minister of Patriots and Veterans Affairs, shall be entitled to the honorable treatment of the Act on

The purpose of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State is to contribute to the inspiring the patriotism of the people by properly treating and supporting persons who have made a sacrifice or contribution to the State (Article 1), and the basic principle of honorable treatment is to ensure that persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and their bereaved family members shall be respected as models of noble patriotism by their sacrifice and contribution (Article 2). Furthermore, the above Act prohibits persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State, their bereaved family members, or their families from doing any act detrimental to the dignity of persons of distinguished services to the State (Article 10). Furthermore, the above Act prohibits persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State, their bereaved family members, or their families from doing any act detrimental to the dignity of persons of distinguished services to the State who have rendered distinguished services to the State, or having been sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or any heavier punishment for committing any act detrimental to the dignity prescribed by Presidential Decree or committing any specific

B. In light of the legislative purport of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that noncommissioned Officer’s appointment disqualification does not apply to the Plaintiff’s provision related to soldiers and police officers on duty, which is void per se. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation and application of Article 4(1)6 of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State and

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)