1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

The following facts are apparent in the records of the judgment subject to review:

On November 7, 2011, the Plaintiff, while serving in the military, was informed of bullying and bullying without merit from superior soldiers, and accordingly, filed an application for registration of persons of distinguished service to the State with respect to the injury of the Plaintiff, claiming that there was a bridge, left-hand sale, and bridge symptoms due to severe stress.

On June 4, 2012, following the resolution of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement, the Defendant rendered a decision on the allowance corresponding to the person who rendered distinguished services to the State (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for soldier or policeman on duty, on the ground that the specific and objective evidentiary data were not verified, and thus, it was not recognized as a wound in the line of duty.

On July 5, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the revocation of the instant disposition (Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Gudan15671), but was sentenced to a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on July 4, 2013, and was sentenced to a judgment dismissing the appeal on November 25, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “the judgment dismissing the appeal”) even in the appellate court (Seoul High Court Decision 2013Nu21443), and was also sentenced to a judgment dismissing the appeal on March 12, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the judgment dismissing the appeal”).

The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the existence of grounds for retrial is unlawful in the following sense.

Written confirmations and confirmations, which served as evidence of the judgment subject to a retrial, were forged.

The fact-finding based on the findings of the original judgment and the medical record appraisal replys conducted in the original judgment are illegal as they were sent to the Plaintiff by the fact-finding agency and the appraisal of the medical records that were conducted in the original judgment.

The difference in this case was caused by the plaintiff's appropriate treatment time during the military service, and between military service and the difference in this case.