1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined on June 19, 201 as follows: (a) based on the reasons indicated in its reasoning, that the degree of difference between the result of a reclassification physical examination conducted with the Plaintiff on June 11, 2007 and the result of a reclassification physical examination conducted on August 29, 2012, was worse or not changed; and (b) the Plaintiff was unable to be deemed to have reached the disability after the enforcement of the Military Pension Act amended on May 19, 2011, solely on the ground that the Plaintiff was subject to class 6 of the disability rating under the Military Pension Act.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is correct, and there is no error of finding facts in violation of logical and empirical rules or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. As long as a law or a provision of a law decided as unconstitutional is not related to punishment, it shall lose its effect from the date on which the decision is made (Article 47(2) of the Constitutional Court Act). As long as the Constitutional Court has imposed a decision of inconsistency with the Constitution on any provision of a law at the discretion of the legislator to establish or abolish the provision of the law in a constitutional manner, the retroactive application of the law and the scope of retroactive application shall, in principle, depend on the legislative discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da52647, Mar. 9, 2006, etc.). Accordingly, in a case where an improvement legislation was made pursuant to a decision of inconsistency with the Constitution with the Constitution with the effect of suspending the application of a law or a provision of a law, whether the legislation can be retroactively applied to a general case brought before the ruling of inconsistency with the Constitution or a provision of a law, it shall be decided according to the contents of the amended law as a result of the exercise of legislative power, if there is an explicit provision on retroactive application.

B. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court recognized that (1) on June 24, 2010, the Constitutional Court: (a) revised by Act No. 6327, Dec. 30, 200; (b) Article 23(1) of the former Military Pension Act (amended by Act No. 10649, May 19, 201); (c) “The former Military Pension Act does not provide for the payment of pension for wounds to soldiers whose disability became final and conclusive after their retirement from office due to disease or injury does not coincide with the Constitution; and (d) determined that the former Military Pension Act was retroactively amended by Act No. 131, Jun. 30, 201; and (e) the former Military Pension Act, which was amended by Act No. 10641, May 19, 201; and (e) the former Military Pension Act, which was amended by Act No. 12131, Mar. 21, 2016>

Meanwhile, the Constitutional Court's ruling of inconsistency with the Constitution on the ground that the part of the order to continue application of the former Act on the grounds that it is a provision on the grounds that a person eligible for a pension for wounds can continue to pay the existing pension for wounds, and that it is a provision on the grounds that "where a soldier is disabled due to a disease or injury caused by official duty after retirement," it is a provision on the grounds that the payment of a pension for wounds is excluded. Therefore, the interpretation of the former Act on the unconstitutionality of the Act on the unconstitutionality of the Constitution on the Exclusion of a soldier from the beneficiary of a pension for wounds is interpreted as a provision on the grounds that "where a soldier becomes disabled due to a disease or injury caused by official duty after retirement, etc." (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Du1885, Sept. 29, 201). Therefore, the plaintiff's ruling of inconsistency with the Constitution on the grounds that the plaintiff is

C. Examining the contents and purport of the amended Military Pension Act, which is an improvement legislation that has removed the unconstitutionality of the provisions of the former Act pursuant to the unconstitutionality ruling of this case, in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the lower court’s determination that the amended Military Pension Act does not apply retroactively to this case, which is a general case that was instituted after the decision of inconsistency with the Constitution, is justifiable, and there

3. Conclusion

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 Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)