1. The case where the plaintiff and the plaintiff are involved in the business

The Minister of National Defense

1. The plaintiffs' claim to nullify the invalidity of the retirement lump-sum financial disposition of the plaintiff's main claim is dismissed, and the plaintiff's claim to dismiss the retirement benefit payment claim of the plaintiff, the order of the plaintiff, the head of the Gu, the head of the Gu, and the white-si, and the claim to revoke the rejection of the request to revoke the request to dismiss the retirement benefit payment of the Kim Jong-man

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs confirmed that each retirement lump-sum financial disposition on September 20 of the same year against Plaintiff 1 as of August 11, 1961 was invalid, and that the dismissal disposition on the Plaintiff 1's retirement benefit claim against Plaintiff 1 as of August 6, 1983 and the dismissal disposition on the Plaintiff 1 as of October 6, 1983 against the Plaintiff 1 as of September 2 of the same year is revoked. The judgment that the dismissal disposition on the Plaintiff 1 as of September 20 of the same year against Plaintiff 1 as of September 20 of the same year is revoked, and that the dismissal disposition on the Plaintiff 1 as of August 5, 1981 against the retirement benefit claim against Plaintiff 1 as of August 5, 1981 is revoked.

Preliminaryly, on August 5, 1981, the defendant sought a ruling that the dismissal disposition against the claim for payment of retirement benefits on August 5, 1981, and the dismissal disposition against the claim for the military pension benefits examination on October 6, 1983 is invalid, and the costs of the lawsuit should be borne by the defendant.

The plaintiffs were in office as the Army Order at the time of the 5.16 Revolution, and the defendant took measures to convert the plaintiffs into reserve service based on Article 20(1) of the former Military Personnel Status Decree on July 30, 1961. On August 11 of the same year, the plaintiffs were appointed as the President of the Army Order, and on August 11 of the same year, they were appointed as the plaintiff on September 20 of the same year, and the plaintiff 00 U.S. P. P. on September 20 of the same year, they received a lump sum payment for retirement benefits calculated pursuant to the Public Officials’ Annual Wage Act (Act No. 653) in which the plaintiffs were in force at the time, and on August 5, 198 and on the claims for military pension benefits benefits examination, the plaintiffs did not dispute each other.

The Plaintiffs’ assertion was made on the basis of the Plaintiffs’ seals and various documents, such as a written request for retirement benefits and service records, which were unilaterally obtained from the Plaintiffs immediately after the military revolution. The Plaintiffs were in a state where the Plaintiffs were not given an opportunity to request a review of retirement benefits. As such, the above financial disposition is invalid, and thus, the retirement pension claim is not final and conclusive. Accordingly, the Defendant’s new retirement pension, pension payment, and pension payment were to be made on the lawful basis of the Plaintiffs’ request for a review of the retirement benefits in order of 19 years of service, and thus, the Plaintiffs’ request for a review of the above retirement benefits was rejected. The Plaintiffs’ request for a review of the retirement benefits in order of 19 years of service and 19 years of service. The Plaintiffs’ request for a review of the retirement benefits in question was rejected on the premise that the Plaintiffs’ request for a review of the retirement benefits in question was unlawful and unjust, and thus, the Plaintiffs’ request for a review of the retirement benefits in question and its rejection of the Plaintiffs’ request for a review of the retirement benefits in question.

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim is dismissed as there is no ground to confirm the invalidity of the retirement lump sum financial disposition and the conjunctive claim, and the plaintiff's primary claim is dismissed as it is unlawful and dismissed as the claim for dismissal of each retirement benefit payment and the claim for cancellation of the Military Pension Benefits Examination is dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition by the plaintiffs who have lost.

Judges Lee Han-gu (Presiding Judge)