1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On June 5, 2012, the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission established under the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission of Korea on June 5, 2012, and from around 1963 to 1975, the Plaintiff, who was employed as a police official, joined several times to counter-espionage operations, and served as a counter-espionage operation subject to the Order of Military Merit under Article 13 of the Awards and Decorations Act three times. Under the situation of emergency martial law in 1980, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition with the purport to request the issuance of the Order of Military Merit on the ground that the Plaintiff recovered firearms and live bullets of the Gwangju Western Western Police Station, etc. from the 31st unit of the Army, and entered the army into the 31st unit of the Army to prevent the destruction of weapons during the military demonstration

B. On July 2, 2012, the Defendant: (a) held a review committee on the merit on June 27, 2012; and (b) responded to the purport that some meritorious services asserted by the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to be the meritorious services of the Plaintiff; and (c) some meritorious services are recognized as the meritorious services of the Plaintiff; and (d) the recommendation of the Order of Military Merit was rejected because they were insufficient in the meritorious services for

C. On July 7, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition with the Office of the President that the Defendant failed to comply with the recommendation of the Order of Military Merit to the Plaintiff, and the said civil petition was transferred to the Defendant.

On July 23, 2014, the Defendant issued a review on the Plaintiff’s application for the issuance of the Order of Military Merit on or around June 2012 to the effect that, as a result of the review on the Plaintiff’s application for the issuance of the Order of Military Merit, it was rejected on the ground that it was insufficient to recommend the issuance of the Order of Military Merit at the time of police officials’ employment, and that reexamination

E. On July 23, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission against the purport that the revocation of the Defendant’s application for the order of merit issued on July 23, 2014, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, on January 14, 2015, requested that the Defendant’s civil petition reply was merely an instruction on the Plaintiff’s civil petition.