The defendant-qualified (=State) in a lawsuit seeking confirmation of whether a person, whose document was written as being awarded the Order of Manit Military Merit on the donation by the State, has been awarded the Order of Manit Military Merit

The claim of this lawsuit to confirm that the plaintiff, which is indicated as being awarded the Order of Manit Military Merit by the State, is the person awarded the Order of Manit Military Merit. Even if the purport of the claim of this confirmation is to obtain confirmation of the degree necessary for obtaining honorable treatment, such as compensation, etc. as a person of distinguished service to the State, the State shall be the defendant pursuant to Article 30 of the Administrative Litigation Act, since it falls under a party lawsuit regarding legal relations under public law, not an appeal

Article 4(1)7, Article 6, and Article 7 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment, etc. of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State; Article 8(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act; Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act; Article 39

Park Jin-jin

Minister of Government Administration

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu525 delivered on May 11, 1990

The judgment below is reversed, and the lawsuit of this case is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Bain ex officio.

The plaintiff's claim for this lawsuit was issued by the State on January 20, 1953, and it is stated that the plaintiff was awarded the Order of Maci Military Merit. Thus, the defendant must confirm that the plaintiff was awarded the Order of Maci Military Merit. The purport of the claim for this confirmation is that the plaintiff was confirmed as a person who was awarded the Order of Maci Military Merit, and Article 4 (1) 7, Articles 6 and 7 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment, etc. of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State, Article 8 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 3 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and Article 3 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, even if it is necessary to obtain honorable treatment such as compensation, etc. as a person of distinguished service to the State, this is not an appeal

Nevertheless, the plaintiff is the Minister of Government Administration in this lawsuit, and the judgment of the court below is too excessive and it cannot be maintained in this respect.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and this case is sufficient to support the party members. Thus, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice) Lee Jong-won (Presiding Justice)