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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. On March 2, 1992, the Plaintiff entered the Korea Army Academy Korea as a bachelor candidate, and on August 1, 1992, the Plaintiff served as a so-called officer on August 1, 1992, and was discharged from the retirement age on August 31, 2007 by subrogation.

B. On March 3, 2009, the Plaintiff had left the right shoulder during the officer candidate training around June 1992 (hereinafter “instant accident”) against the Defendant on the right shoulder during the officer candidate training (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(2) While performing duties in the Republic of Korea and post-ranking officers, each of them was performed by the Dog-Jak-gu in 2000 and by the Dog-Jak-gu in 2001, and even after being performed by the Dog-Jak-gu in 2001, the Dog-Jak-gu in both sides was performed by the Dog-Jak-gu in both sides.

) On the ground that the Defendant received hospitalized treatment under the name of sick person, applied for registration of a person who rendered distinguished service to the State for the instant injury. Around September 10, 2009, the Defendant rendered a decision corresponding to the person who rendered distinguished service to the State.

C. After that, on February 1, 2010, the Plaintiff again filed an application for registration of the instant wound with the Defendant, which, on March 8, 2010, the Defendant rendered a decision equivalent to a person of distinguished service to the State on the ground that there was no relevant treatment record at the time of the first outbreak of illness (round June 1992, there was no relevant treatment record, several times thereafter, and that the diagnosis was performed several years after the first withdrawal, it was judged that it was objectively difficult to recognize that the instant wound was caused due to considerable causal relationship with the performance of official duties, and re-applicationed without additional supporting documents, and on the ground that there was no objective evidence to reverse the previous resolution.

Accordingly, on November 29, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the said disposition against the Defendant, and received a favorable judgment in the first instance court (Seoul District Court 2010Gudan4679) on October 28, 2011, and the appellate court (Seoul High Court 201Nu2959) that appealed after the Defendant was sentenced to dismissal of the appeal, and the Defendant did not file an appeal, and thus, the said favorable judgment (hereinafter “previous judgment”) was rendered on July 6, 2012.