1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff filed a claim seeking revocation of the pertinent decision-making disposition rendered by a person of distinguished service to the State and a claim seeking revocation of the pertinent decision-making disposition rendered by a person of distinguished service to the State, but whether the form of consolidation is simple consolidation, selective consolidation or preliminary consolidation should be determined on the basis of the nature of the claim not to be

According to Article 4(2) of the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation (hereinafter “The Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State”), an applicant for registration is deemed to have filed an application for registration of a person eligible for veteran’s compensation under the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State on the date of filing of the application for registration, and accordingly, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff on July 26, 2013 that the applicant constitutes a person eligible for veteran’s compensation.

In light of the legislative intent and contents of the relevant Act, the details and contents of the disposition, and the nature of the joint claim, etc., the revocation claim against a person of distinguished service to the State and the revocation claim against a person of distinguished service to the State are claims that are not compatible with each other. Therefore, the aforementioned claim can be joined only in the primary and preliminary claim, and the combination or simple consolidation as selective claims is not allowed.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s claim of this case primarily aims to revoke the Defendant’s non-existence of a person of distinguished service to the State and to seek revocation of the Defendant’s non-existence of a person of distinguished service.

On the other hand, the court of first instance dismissed the plaintiff's primary claim seeking revocation of the decision-making disposition that is not a person of distinguished service to the State, and accepted the plaintiff's conjunctive claim seeking revocation of the decision-making

The plaintiff did not appeal against this and only the defendant lost.