1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on April 7, 2005, the plaintiff filed an application with the defendant to recognize additional disabilities of the above persons rendering distinguished services to the State (hereinafter "the application of this case") on the ground that "the plaintiff, as a soldier in Vietnam around January 1, 1970, did not know about the above disposition of this case," and "the plaintiff did not seek an administrative appeal against the Minister of Patriots and Veterans Affairs for revocation of the disposition of this case on November 11, 2005," and that "the defendant did not seek an additional disposition of this case on the ground that the defendant did not seek an additional disposition of this case against the defendant 2 on the ground that "the defendant did not want to revoke the disposition of this case on July 6, 2006," and the Minister of Patriots and Veterans Affairs did not seek an administrative appeal against the defendant 1 to revoke the disposition of this case on the ground that the defendant did not have any obstacle to the right side of the Seoul High Court, which was the Seoul High Court's decision for revocation of this case."

After recognizing the above facts, the court below rejected the defendant's claim that the lawsuit of this case conflicts with the res judicata of the final judgment on the previous lawsuit and accepted the plaintiff's primary claim after rejecting the defendant's claim that the res judicata effect has not been established even after July 6, 2006, on the ground that, since the judgment of March 8, 2013, the defendant issued the instant refusal disposition as of August 23, 2005, which was subject to the instant refusal disposition as of August 23, 2005, prior to the revocation of the instant refusal disposition, there was no omission from July 5, 2006. < Amended by Act No. 7871, Jul. 6, 2006>

2. However, we cannot accept the above judgment of the court below.

The res judicata effect of a judgment in a lawsuit is limited to the defects in the requirements of the lawsuit established in the judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Da31406, Nov. 15, 1996; 97Da25521, Dec. 9, 1997). Any assertion or defense arising from the grounds that could have been submitted prior to the closing of argument in the final judgment, which occurred before the closing of argument in the final judgment, is interrupted by the res judicata effect of the final judgment, and thus, it is not allowed for the parties to make a new assertion contrary to the contents of the final judgment for such reasons (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 8Da3116, Sept. 27, 198

Upon examining the facts in light of the above legal principles, the previous lawsuit and the lawsuit in this case are identical to each other, and the purport of the previous lawsuit and the main purport of the lawsuit in this case are as follows: "The defendant's omission in the application for additional recognition of the difference in the left side of April 7, 2005 is confirmed to be illegal," and the circumstances that "the decision of this case was revoked by the revocation of administrative appeal as of July 6, 2006" asserted by the plaintiff as the ground of illegal omission in the lawsuit in this case are the circumstances that occurred before the closing of argument in the previous lawsuit in this case, and as long as the judgment of rejection becomes final and conclusive without the plaintiff's own appeal, the judgment of rejection was rendered for the same reason even before the closing of argument in the previous lawsuit in this case at the time." In other words, since the final and conclusive judgment of the previous lawsuit as to "the plaintiff's omission does not exist in the plaintiff's application in this case" affect the lawsuit in this case, the plaintiff's new argument that the grounds in this case was revoked shall not be permitted.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the plaintiff's primary claim of this case does not conflict with the res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment of the previous lawsuit is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to res judicata of the judgment of the lawsuit, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The defendant'

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee In-bok (Presiding Justice)