The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, based on the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that it was difficult to deem the Plaintiff to have reached the condition of disability following the enforcement of the Military Pension Act amended on May 19, 2011, on the ground that the Plaintiff received class 6 of the Military Pension Act on June 19, 2012, on the following grounds: (a) there was no change 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; and (b) there was no change in the degree of the difference between the Plaintiff and the result of the reclassification physical examination conducted on August 29

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 the law or provisions of the law decided as unconstitutional do not relate 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 makes a decision of inconsistency with the Constitution as to a certain provision of the law and entrusts the legislative person with the authority to form or abolish 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.

(1) The Constitutional Court’s ruling of inconsistency with the Constitution is to be applied retroactively to a general case filed after the decision of inconsistency with the Constitution is made pursuant to Article 15(1) of the Constitutional Court Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da52647, Mar. 9, 2006).