On October 17, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant against the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Gahap534948, and the Plaintiff submitted an application for discharge against his/her own will on April 4, 1973, against the Defendant for advisory and assault from investigators of the Army Security Headquarters at the time of the B regime, and accordingly, the Defendant’s discharge from active service (hereinafter “instant discharge from active service”) on April 11, 1973 against the Plaintiff was unlawful and void, and filed a lawsuit seeking property damage equivalent to the salary that the Plaintiff could have received, KRW 6,372,000,000,000,000,000 won, and damages therefor by the end of the month following the date of retirement.

On June 14, 2013, the Seoul Central District Court decided that the plaintiff is liable for tort to the defendant pursuant to Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act by accepting the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription and rejecting the plaintiff's claim by rejecting the plaintiff's defense of abuse of rights (hereinafter referred to as "the review decision").

On June 18, 2013, the original copy of the judgment subject to a retrial was served on the Plaintiff’s legal representative, and on July 3, 2013, the Plaintiff did not file an appeal.

2. Determination on the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: ① the Plaintiff’s damage caused by the Defendant’s unlawful act: ① the direct exercise of tangible force by investigators of the Army Security Command (illegal confinement and advisory of investigators, coercion of preparation of a written application for discharge, etc.) and ② the part arising from the legal relationship established after the direct use of tangible force (i.e., deprivation of status due to invalid discharge order;