[2] Where Party A’s application for the registration of a person who rendered distinguished service to the State was rejected by the head of the local veterans branch for the registration of a person who rendered distinguished service to the State, the case holding that the judgment of the court below is unlawful on the ground that Party A’s ground for the disposition of the head of the local veterans branch itself recognized the fact that Party A suffered from the above injury, but rejected the registration of a person who rendered distinguished service to the State because Party A’s negligence was concurrently caused by Party A’s negligence, and the purport of the judgment of the court below is ultimately to deny the registration of a person who rendered distinguished service to the State, since Party A did not

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, with respect to the application for registration of persons of distinguished service to the State, which was wounded on the left-hand sle of the plaintiff's left-hand sleak, and the defendant was injured due to concurrent causes by the plaintiff's negligence while performing the plaintiff's movement, and thus, it constitutes the requirements for the Supporting Soldiers under Article 73-2 (1) of the former Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (amended by Act No. 9462 of Feb. 6, 2009; hereinafter "Act") and notified the plaintiff of the decision on August 5, 2008 on the Support of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State (hereinafter "the disposition of this case") on the ground that the plaintiff's refusal to be registered as a soldier or policeman on duty under Article 4 (1) 6 of the Act as a soldier or policeman on duty, the court below rejected the plaintiff's allegation that the plaintiff's injury was unlawful due to the plaintiff's negligence and the other party's injury.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, we affirm the fact-finding and judgment of the court below as just, and this part of the judgment below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the

However, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s assertion was groundless on the ground that the Plaintiff was hospitalized in an after-sales hospital around November 5, 1971 on the ground that the Plaintiff was hospitalized in the right spawnosis, which started on April 1, 1971, and received anti-monthly medication on the right spawn around the 23th day of the same month on the ground that the Plaintiff was hospitalized in the after-sales hospital around November 5, 1971.

Article 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act, which provides for ex officio investigation of evidence and ex officio detection, is a provision of exceptions to the principle of party and the principle of pleading, which focuses on the special nature of the administrative litigation. A court may ex officio investigate and determine the matters recorded on the record and based on it. In such a case, it is allowed to determine the legitimacy of administrative disposition by recognizing a new ground only to the extent that it is recognized as identical to the original grounds for disposition and basic facts (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Du6394, May 28, 2009, etc.).

In this case, while recognizing the fact that the plaintiff suffered from the wound in this case, the purport of the defendant's disposition in this case is to refuse to accept registration of persons of distinguished service because the plaintiff's negligence occurred concurrently, and the purport of the decision of the court below that recognized the fact that the plaintiff received an operation by suffering from injury to the right chain at the time, is that the plaintiff was not injured in this case, and therefore, it is difficult to see that the plaintiff was identical to the ground for disposition in this case and basic factual relations. Thus, in light of the above legal principles, the court below

Therefore, the judgment of the court below in this part is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the scope of ex officio adjudication under Article 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act. However, as seen above, the court below's fact-finding and determination that the plaintiff cannot be recognized as suffering from the difference in this case due to the circumstance as alleged by the plaintiff is just, and the above illegality of the court below'

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)