1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff’s refusal to pay retirement benefits on September 1, 2014, which was added at the trial.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is as follows: (a) the reasons for this decision are as follows: (b) Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act; (c) Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act; and (d) Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The defendant shall be dismissed as the Director of the Judicial Research and Training Institute in the second half of the judgment of the first instance, and the 12th "I do not," and the defendant shall be added to the following:

B. From 3 to 9 parallels in the first instance court judgment are as follows:

E. On May 9, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for payment of retirement benefits for the two-year period of the Judicial Research and Training Institute on the premise that ① payment of the difference between the retirement benefits calculated on the premise that the two-year period of the Judicial Research and Training Institute was added to the tenure of office under the Public Officials Pension Act, subtracting the retirement benefits calculated on the basis of the 19-year period of service that the Plaintiff had already received, or ② payment of retirement benefits for the two-year period of the Judicial Research and Training Institute under the Public Officials Pension Act, under the premise that the two-year period of service is not added to the tenure of office under the Public Officials Pension Act. The Defendant is not able to pay the retirement benefits calculated on the basis

The foregoing retirement benefit was refused to pay on the ground that the retirement benefit was “a disposition rejecting the payment of retirement benefit as of May 9, 2013” (hereinafter “instant retirement benefit”).

(3) On September 11, 2014, the Defendant did not apply for retirement benefits for two years in the tenure of office of the Business Training Institute from August 31, 1980, when five years have passed since the Plaintiff retired from the Judicial Research and Training Institute. As such, the extinctive prescription of the Plaintiff’s claim for retirement benefits has expired on August 31, 1985.

For the reason that the instant retirement benefit was denied (hereinafter “instant retirement benefit refusal disposition as of September 11, 2014”).

(i) the Act;

(c) by inserting 10 pages 3 of the first instance court judgment [based grounds for recognition] the phrase “A evidence No. 4” is added.

2. The primary description;