보훈급여금지급규정준수이행
1. The judgment of the first instance, including the claim extended by the plaintiff in this court, shall be modified as follows.
In this case.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the basic facts is as stated in the part of the “1. Basic Facts” recorded in the first-third of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following modifications. Thus, this part of the basic facts is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Under the second sentence of the judgment of the first instance, the "New Act and Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State" shall be deemed to be the "New Act and Enforcement Decree of the New Act".
The "computer allowance" in the last sentence of the second sentence of the judgment of the first instance and the third part of the first sentence shall be deemed to be "on the deposit basis".
The third part of the judgment of the court of first instance is "21,00 won for full-time allowance" in the second part of the judgment of the court of second instance as "21,000 won for full-time allowance".
2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful
A. The gist of the Defendant’s main defense of safety claims against the Defendant for the payment of the difference between the amount of veterans’ benefits to be paid by the Plaintiff under the former Act and the former Enforcement Decree, and the amount of veterans’ benefits paid by the Defendant under the new Act and the new Enforcement Decree. Such a lawsuit constitutes a lawsuit seeking an administrative agency to perform a certain act, and is thus unlawful.
Furthermore, even if the Plaintiff’s lawsuit is a party suit, the Defendant is an administrative agency in charge of the registration, etc. of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State, and is not a subject of the obligation to pay veterans’ benefits, and the lawsuit in this case is unlawful.
B. 1) The subject matter of a suit seeking revocation and a suit seeking confirmation of invalidation, etc. is an exercise or refusal of public authority as an enforcement of law on specific facts by an administrative agency, and an adjudication on other similar administrative actions and administrative appeals. Under the Administrative Litigation Act, the so-called “performance suit” with the content that orders an administrative agency to actively perform a certain act is not allowed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da15828, 15835, 15842, Feb. 13, 2004). Therefore, the Plaintiff is not allowed.