The judgment below is reversed, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Costs of lawsuit after an appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The issue of whether a certain act of an administrative agency can be a subject of appeal cannot be determined abstractly and generally. In a specific case, an administrative disposition is an enforcement of law with respect to a specific fact conducted by an administrative agency as a public authority, which directly affects the rights and obligations of the people. The decision shall be made individually by taking into account the content and purport of the relevant Act and subordinate statutes, the subject, content, form and procedure of the act, the actual relation between the act and disadvantage suffered by interested persons, such as the other party, and the principle of administration by the rule of law, the attitude of the administrative agency and interested

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2008Du167 Decided November 18, 2010, etc.). 2. A.

The lower court, citing the reasoning of the first instance judgment, acknowledged the following facts.

① On January 6, 1971, the Plaintiff’s son B (hereinafter “the deceased”) entered the Army, and died on June 13, 1971, upon receiving a nitrogen from the steering division during the boundary service at around 22:00 on June 13, 1971.

② On August 21, 2009, the Committee for Finding the Truth of Military Literatures rendered a ruling of the truth that “the deceased shall be recognized as having died as an important cause of the euthanasia, such as alivism and cruel acts, and the neglect of management by the commander, etc. thereof, caused the death of the deceased.”

③ On September 29, 2014, the Plaintiff requested a Central Review Committee for Review of Death Classification to the Ministry of National Defense (hereinafter referred to as the “Review Committee”) pursuant to Article 6 of the Directive on the Disposal of Persons, etc. of the Former Construction (Ordinance No. 1691, Aug. 28, 2014; hereinafter referred to as the “instant Directive”).

On January 8, 2015, the Review Committee decided that the deceased did not meet the requirements for death on duty in the above Directive [Attachment 1], and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the result of the above Resolution on January 30, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant notice”). (b)

The lower court.