[2] The case holding that even before December 31, 2001, before December 31, 1997-1998, a person who had been registered in the course of study at a university located in the Philippines, which falls under subparagraph 2 of Article 9 of the former Veterinarians Act, was eligible for a veterinarian's license again to graduate from the course of study at another university from November 2005 to March 2007 after graduation after being admitted to the course of study at another university

[3] The method of determining the identity of basic factual relations, which is a requirement for adding or changing grounds for a disposition in an appeal suit seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition

[2] The case holding that in the year 197-1998, prior to December 31, 2001, a veterinarian, who had graduated from a department of medicine at a D University from the Republic of Korea on November 7, 2000 after completing the duty of military service after having returned from the Republic of Korea with only registered only credits and having obtained military credits in the department of study at A University located in the Republic of Korea, which falls under Article 9 subparagraph 2 of the former Veterinarians Act (amended by Act No. 5953 of Mar. 31, 1999), who had graduated from the Republic of Korea on March 2005 through the D University Department of D University after having entered the Republic of Korea on March 3, 2005, who had graduated from the department of study at D University from November 31, 2005 to March 31, 2007 under Article 9 (4) of the Addenda to the Veterinarians Act (amended by Act No. 5953 of Mar. 31, 1999)

[3] In an appeal seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition, the agency may add or alter other grounds only to the extent that the grounds for the original disposition are identical to the basic factual relations. The existence of the factual relations in this context shall be determined based on whether the relevant basic social factual relations are identical in basic points, based on the specific facts before the grounds for disposition are legally assessed. The additional or modified grounds only exist at the time of the disposition, and the relevant parties are aware of such facts, and thus, cannot be deemed identical to the original grounds for disposition.

According to the records and provisions of the former Veterinarians Act (amended by Act No. 5953, Mar. 31, 199; hereinafter referred to as the "former Act"), Article 9 Subparag. 2 of the said Act grants a veterinarian's national examination license to the "person who majored in veterinary science at a foreign university recognized by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry" (including veterinary science at a college located in a foreign country) and obtained a veterinarian's license from 10th anniversary of the above amendment of the Act, 7th anniversary of the above amendment of the Act before the date of the 19th anniversary of the above amendment of the Act, the plaintiff's qualifications were 9th anniversary of the completion of the above amendment of the Act 19th 7th 7th 2nd 1st 7th 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 1st 9th 2nd 2nd 1st 201st 2nd 1st 2002.

In light of the aforementioned amendment of Article 9 subparag. 2 of the Act and the details and legislative intent of the establishment of the supplementary provision of this case prior to the amendment, the above supplementary provision shall be interpreted as a provision that protects all cases of commencement of enrollment in the veterinary department of a foreign university as stipulated in Article 9(2) prior to the amendment before December 31, 201. Meanwhile, Article 9 subparag. 2 of the Act prior to the amendment shall be construed as a provision that protects all cases of commencement of enrollment in the veterinary department of the foreign university, and Article 9 subparag. 2 of the Act shall be construed as having basic qualities to obtain domestic veterinarian's license in light of the purport of granting qualification, for a person who has obtained a bachelor's degree from a university recognized by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry in light of the purpose of granting qualification for enrollment, and shall be construed as having granted the qualification for admission, and the same shall not apply to cases where the person obtained a bachelor's degree after entering a university or college with a major in veterinary medicine and after completion of the course, and thus demanding the identity of university obtained a bachelor's license.

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim on the ground that, even before December 31, 2001, where a person who was enrolled in the veterinary department is subject to the above supplementary provision, the above supplementary provision applies to the person who was enrolled in the veterinary department, but the academic degree of veterinary science is not subject to such bachelor's degree at the A college which majored in veterinary science as the plaintiff, but is not subject to such bachelor's degree at the A college which graduated from the above college, and where the above college's credits are not recognized at the college, it is not subject to the above college's qualification under Article 9 subparagraph 2 of the former Act before the amendment. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the interpretation of the qualification for taking the veterinarian national examination under Article 9 subparagraph 2 of the former Act before the amendment and affected the judgment

Meanwhile, in an appeal litigation seeking the cancellation of an administrative disposition, a disposition agency may add or change other grounds only to the extent that the grounds for the original disposition are recognized as identical to the basic factual relations. The existence of the basic factual relations here is determined based on whether the basic social factual relations are identical in a basic point prior to the legal evaluation of the grounds for disposition. The additional or modified grounds exist only at the time of the disposition, and the parties have been aware of such facts, and cannot be deemed identical to the original reasons for the disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Nu3895, Feb. 14, 1992; 2001Du827, Dec. 11, 2003; 2001Du827, Dec. 31, 2003). Thus, the court below’s determination that the grounds for the Defendant’s disposition do not constitute the grounds for the same legal principle as that for the Plaintiff’s major in the college’s major, which cannot be seen as the grounds for the amendment of the Act.

The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

Therefore, 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 Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)