(영문) 대법원 2015.4.23.선고 2015두35192 판결

In an appeal litigation seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition, a disposition agency may add or modify other grounds only to the extent that the original reason and basic factual relations are recognized to be identical. The existence of the identity of basic factual relations in this context shall be determined based on whether the underlying social factual relations are identical in terms of a basic point of view, based on the specific facts prior to the legal evaluation of the grounds for disposition, and it is not allowed to assert a ground for disposition on grounds of a separate fact that is not recognized as identical to the basic factual relations (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Du8827, Dec. 11, 2001)

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the defendant accepted the defendant's claim that "the case did not meet the disability rating criteria of the disability rating table" under Article 14 (3) [Attachment 3] of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State, and the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim that "the plaintiff cannot be deemed to fall under Grade 7 (3108) even if the treatment of the case was not completed."

However, according to the above legal principles, the reason that the defendant cannot be deemed to have fixed symptoms due to the completion of the treatment in the process of the lawsuit is that "the degree of the symptoms does not reach the grade criteria" is a separate reason not related to the original reason, and it is difficult to view that the identity of the original reason for the disposition and the basic factual relations is recognized, and therefore, it is not allowed for the defendant to add it to the new reason

Nevertheless, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the instant disposition was lawful by recognizing the new grounds for disposition. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the addition and modification of the grounds for disposition, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.