1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Case history

A. The plaintiff served as a Army officer from May 2, 1971 to January 31, 1974, and among them, he served as a BCOM military prosecutor or a certified judicial scrivener from July 11, 1972 to March 14, 1973.

In addition, from March 1, 1974 to August 6, 1992, the Plaintiff retired from office.

B. On March 2, 1982, the Plaintiff filed an application with the public prosecutor to the effect that the Plaintiff’s military service period was added to the public official’s service period, and the pertinent application was written as “two years and nine months.”

C. The plaintiff was approved by the Minister of Government Administration on May 6, 1982 that the service period of two years and nine months shall be added as stated in the application form.

On July 5, 2016, the Plaintiff received a retirement pension under the premise of adding up the service period of two years and nine months after retirement. However, on the ground that the Plaintiff submitted an application for rectification of the service period to the Defendant on July 5, 2016, and submitted an application for rectification to the Defendant, the Plaintiff changed one year and six months in the service period already approved.

(hereinafter “instant application”) . E.

On July 11, 2016, the Defendant sent reply to the Plaintiff on July 11, 2016, and to the effect that “the Plaintiff only recognized the two and a half-year service period from the Military Pension Treatment Agency at the time of discharge, and thus, the Defendant cannot recognize any additional service period of the Plaintiff, and in the case of a retired public official, such as the Plaintiff, it is impossible to add the additional service period

hereinafter referred to as "the reply of this case"

(ii) [Ground of recognition] unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings;

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion is not a new application for adding up the period of service after retirement, but a mistake of the Minister of Government Administration.