1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

purport, purport, ..

The following facts that have become final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial are apparent or apparent in records.

On November 7, 2011, the Plaintiff, while serving in the military, was seriously informed of bullying and bullying without merit from the superior soldiers. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserted that there was a pre-complosion, left-hand sale, and bridge symptoms due to severe stress, and filed an application for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State with the difference in the application for registration as “pre-comploitation, pre-exploitation, left-hand sale, and bridge (hereinafter “instant difference”).

On June 4, 2012, the Defendant rendered a non-competent decision on the ground that the injury in the instant case was not recognized as a soldier or policeman on duty and did not constitute the requirements of the soldier or policeman on duty (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On July 5, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an administrative litigation seeking revocation of the instant disposition against the Defendant by Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Gudan15671, and the Seoul Administrative Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on July 4, 2013.

On November 25, 2014, the Plaintiff appealed to this Court as 2013Nu21443, and this Court rendered a judgment subject to a retrial dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal.

On March 12, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed to the judgment subject to a retrial and filed a final appeal with Supreme Court Decision 2014Du15313, and the final appeal was dismissed on March 12, 2015.

3. 17. The judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive as it is.

Plaintiff’s assertion

① The contents of the confirmation and confirmation of the fact-finding of the judgment subject to a retrial were forged. ② The Plaintiff, even though brain RI images taken by the Seoul University Hospital around April 201, submitted them as new evidence after the confirmation of the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive, and ③ the instant difference was caused by setting the appropriate treatment period for the Plaintiff while serving in the military.