The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal ex officio.

1. In light of the language and purport of relevant provisions, such as Article 4(1)6, Article 6, and Article 74-18 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc.”) and Article 4 of the Act on Support for Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State”), a decision not to accept an objection under Article 74-18(1) of the Act on the Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State shall not

(2) On July 27, 2016, according to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the Plaintiff filed a motion for registration of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State on the ground that there is no proximate causal relation between the instant wounds and the military performance of official duties (hereinafter “instant original decision”) with the Plaintiff on May 31, 2013. (2) The Plaintiff filed a motion for review with the Defendant on September 11, 2013, and the Defendant rendered a motion for review on the same purport as the instant original decision by the Board of Patriots and Veterans after review (hereinafter “decision on retrial”). (3) The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant decision on December 9, 2013.

Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the review decision of this case is maintained as it is and the Plaintiff’s objection is rejected, and it cannot be deemed as a disposition subject to appeal litigation.

On the other hand, the plaintiff.