국가유공자요건비해당결정취소
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by all the plaintiffs.
According to the final records of the judgment subject to review, the following facts are recognized:
A. On July 10, 2012, the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) filed an application for registration of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State on the ground that the Plaintiff’s father, the father of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the deceased”), was arrested to the enemy and died during the Korean War, on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s father, the father of the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant”) was arrested to the enemy while serving in the Rabbbbol as a volunteer.
B. On December 6, 2012, the Defendant rendered a decision to deny the registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that it is difficult to recognize that the deceased died in combat action or other equivalent action against the Plaintiff.
C. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking revocation of a non-conformity of persons rendering distinguished services to the State as Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2014Gudan376, and the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on May 28, 2014.
In response to the above judgment of the first instance court, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with Seoul High Court No. 2014Nu53324, but the said court rendered a judgment subject to a retrial that dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on November 27, 2014.
E. The Plaintiff appealed as Supreme Court Decision 2014Du46478 regarding the judgment subject to a retrial, but the said court dismissed the final appeal on March 12, 2015, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on March 12, 2015.
F. On November 17, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for reexamination of the instant case.
Whether a new suit is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the deceased died on the part of the People’s Corps while performing public security activities and anti-presidential operations as the volunteer police at the time of the Korean War, and thus, the Defendant’s disposition of this case on a different premise is unlawful, even though it falls under a soldier or policeman killed in action under Article 4(1)3 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services
However, since the judgment subject to a retrial is too limited, Article 451 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act is applicable to the judgment subject to a retrial.