Article 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act, which provides for ex officio investigation of evidence and ex officio detection, is a provision of partial exceptions to the principle of party and the principle of pleading, which is relevant to the special nature of the administrative litigation. A court may ex officio conduct an examination of evidence and make a determination on the basis thereof with respect to the matters that are contained on the record. In such a case, it is permissible to determine the legitimacy of administrative disposition by recognizing a new reason only to the extent that it is recognized to be identical in relation to the grounds for the initial disposition and basic facts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du21310, Jan. 13, 2011).

The Defendant’s ground for the disposition of this case is that the Plaintiff’s left left ear does not constitute the requirements of distinguished service to the State. However, the lower court determined that the disposition of this case was not unlawful on the ground that the degree of disability does not fall under the disability rating prescribed by the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State. However, whether the degree of disability falls under the disability rating prescribed by the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State should first be determined at the stage of determining disability rating, and should not be considered in the procedure of determining disability rating if the degree of disability is recognized to fall under the disability rating after going through the procedure for recognizing the person of distinguished service to the State, and should not be considered in the procedure for recognizing the person of distinguished service. Thus, it is difficult to view that the ground for disposition determined by the lower court

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the scope of ex officio adjudication under Article 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act or on the procedure for registration of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State under the former Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (amended by Act No. 11041, Sept. 15, 201)

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Young-young

Justices Kim In-bok, Counsel for the defendant

Justices Kim Jong-il