beta
Text
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.
purport, purport, ..
Reasons
1. Determination of the original judgment
A. On November 7, 2011, the Plaintiff applied for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State on the ground that he/she suffered from a superior soldier in military service without merit and bullying, and that caused severe stress, he/she filed an application for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State, claiming that he/she had been suffering from pre-exploitation, left-hand sale, and sloping symptoms due to severe stress (hereinafter “instant wounds”).
B. On June 4, 2012, following a resolution of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement, the Defendant rendered a non-competent disposition on the ground that the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements of a soldier or policeman wounded on duty (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that it did not constitute a soldier or policeman wounded on duty, on the ground that the specific and objective evidentiary data were not verified, and thus, it was not recognized as a wound in the line of duty.
C. On July 5, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the revocation of the instant disposition (Seoul Administrative Court 2012Gudan15671), but was sentenced to a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on July 4, 2013, and was sentenced to a judgment dismissing the appeal on November 25, 2014 (Seoul High Court 2013Nu21443), and was also sentenced to a judgment dismissing the appeal on March 12, 2015 (Supreme Court 2014Du15313).
In other words, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for retrial with the Seoul High Court Decision 2013Nu21443 (Seoul High Court Decision 2016Nu88). However, the Seoul High Court dismissed the lawsuit for retrial on July 20, 2016, and hereinafter referred to as “the judgment subject to retrial”).
(2) On December 2, 2016, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on December 2, 2016 (Supreme Court Decision 2016Du49235 Decided February 2, 2012)
A. The Plaintiff’s summary of the assertion was forged and the content of the confirmation that served as evidence of the fact-finding of the judgment subject to a retrial, and the fact-finding inquiry, which served as the basis for the fact-finding of the judgment subject to a retrial, and the medical record appraisal reply