1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (the plaintiff).

1. Determination of the original judgment

A. On October 5, 2010, the Plaintiff asserted that the “waste tuberculosis, sacropic fever, and sacrife” (hereinafter “the instant injury”) occurred during military service, and filed an application for registration of a person of distinguished service to the Defendant. However, on October 5, 2010, the Defendant rendered a non-conformity of the requirements for persons of distinguished service to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

B. On September 26, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the instant disposition with this Court 2010Gudan6780, but this Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that there is no proximate causal relation between the instant wounds and the Plaintiff’s performance of duties in the military, and thus, it does not constitute a person of distinguished service to the State (hereinafter “judgment subject to review”).

C. Accordingly, the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive around October 19, 2012, because the Plaintiff did not appeal within the appeal period.

2. Whether there exist grounds for retrial

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that a judgment subject to a retrial was based only on the Defendant’s materials, and was rendered differently from the fact during the grounds for the judgment subject to a retrial. As such, there are grounds for retrial under Article 455(1)9 of the

B. 1) First of all, a suit for a retrial on a final and conclusive judgment is allowed only when there exist grounds stipulated in each subparagraph of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, a suit for a retrial filed on the grounds that there was an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in the judgment subject to a retrial is unlawful (see Supreme Court Decision 87Da24, Dec. 08, 1987). The ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion related to the grounds for a retrial was based only on the Defendant’s materials among the Plaintiff’s assertion, and that there was a different judgment among the reasons for the judgment subject to a retrial, is disputing the fact-finding of the judgment subject