Plaintiff (Law Firm Jeong, Attorneys Cha Jae-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Secretary of the Office of Government Veterans Affairs

April 18, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Defendant’s decision to exclude the application of the Act on the Persons of Distinguished Services to the State of Distinguished Services to the State against the Plaintiff on December 8, 2009 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 2007, the Plaintiff received compensation, etc. according to the decision of the bereaved family registration of the deceased Nonparty (hereinafter “the deceased”).

B. On November 27, 2009, the committee for ascertaining the truth of anti-national acts under the Japanese colonial Rule issued a final announcement of 1,005 persons who committed anti-national acts under Article 2 subparag. 13 of the Special Act on Finding the Truth of Anti-National Acts (hereinafter “Special Act”), among which the deceased was included.

C. On December 8, 2009, the Defendant decided that the deceased’s surviving families, including the deceased and the Plaintiff, who were determined as pro-Japanese and anti-national actors, were excluded from the application of the Act on the Persons of Distinguished Services to the Independence (hereinafter “instant subsequent disposition”), and notified the Plaintiff.

D. On February 16, 2010, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant subsequent disposition, filed an administrative appeal with the Prime Minister under the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister dismissed the ruling on May 11, 2010.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In accordance with Article 28 of the Special Act, the preceding disposition of this case is unlawful to arbitrarily interpret an act falling under Article 2 subparagraph 13 of the Special Act and to select the deceased as a pro-Japanese and anti-national offender by failing to notify the lineal descendants or interested parties of the person subject to investigation.

The preceding disposition of this case contains any defect in the grounds for revocation, and the Plaintiff became aware of the existence of the preceding disposition only after receiving the notice of the subsequent disposition of this case on December 8, 2009, which was at the time when the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on the subsequent disposition of this case, was in a state of dispute with respect to the foregoing preceding disposition on February 16, 2010, which was at the time when the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on the subsequent disposition of this case, and thus, if the Plaintiff fails to dispute any longer on the illegality of the foregoing preceding disposition, it would result

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) In a case where two or more dispositions are conducted consecutively for the purpose of a separate legal effect between the preceding dispositions, if the preceding dispositions and the subsequent dispositions are made independently, they cannot dispute the validity of the preceding dispositions due to the defect in the preceding dispositions except for the case where the defect in the preceding dispositions becomes grave and obvious, and the validity of the preceding dispositions cannot be asserted. In this case, even in a case where the power or binding force of the preceding dispositions results in cruelly beyond the tolerance limit for admission to a person who is at disadvantage due to the defect in the preceding dispositions, and the result is not foreseeable to the parties, it is reasonable to view that the binding force of the subsequent dispositions cannot be recognized in light of the constitutional ideology guaranteeing the right to trial of the people. Thus, if there is an error in the preceding dispositions, it can be asserted as an object of administrative litigation, and it can be asserted as an independent ground for illegality in the administrative litigation seeking the revocation of the subsequent dispositions based on this, as well as the illegality of the preceding dispositions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Nu8542, Jan. 25, 1998).

(2) We examine whether the prior disposition in this case and the subsequent disposition in this case are aimed at the legal effect separate from each other. There is no circumstance that the prior disposition in this case is deemed null and void as a matter of course. In this case, we examine whether the non-existence or binding force of the prior disposition in this case, which is the prior disposition, causes the plaintiff to suffer disadvantage beyond the tolerance limit, and whether the result constitutes a case that is not foreseeable to the plaintiff. According to the evidence adopted above, even though the plaintiff was aware of the existence of the prior disposition in this case on December 8, 2009, the prior disposition in this case was conducted or did not raise an administrative litigation before the lawsuit in this case was filed, and the above evidence alone brings about the disadvantage to the plaintiff who suffers disadvantage due to the non-existence or binding force of the prior disposition in this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the prior disposition in this case constitutes a case where the plaintiff could not have predicted it. Therefore, even if there is any defect in the prior disposition in this case, the plaintiff's assertion that the prior disposition in this case is unlawful and reasonable.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Form 5]

Judges Oap-Gyeong-Gyeong