beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the addition of “judgment on the plaintiff’s assertion of the trial” as stipulated in the following Paragraph (2). Thus, it shall be cited by the main text of Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion of the trial
A. 1) The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant has already recognized the instant difference as an “official wound,” and thus, the instant disposition denying it constitutes revocation of the beneficial administrative act. The instant disposition is unlawful since it is limited to revocation of the beneficial administrative act. 2) In a case where a citizen has acquired certain benefits and rights by means of a specific administrative disposition on the plate, the administrative disposition revoking the previous administrative disposition is a separate administrative disposition deprived of the existing interests and rights of the person who has already acquired it, and there are defects in the administrative disposition.
Even if it is necessary for the public interest to be cancelled, the right to obtain permission and the infringement of trust and stability of legal life to be suffered by the parties, etc., and if it is strong to justify the disadvantage of the parties to the public interest, it can be cancelled. The burden of proof of the defect or the necessity to cancel is the administrative agency which has imposed the disposition that infringes on the existing interest and rights.
(See Supreme Court Decision 201Du23375 Decided March 29, 2012). However, as examined in the first instance judgment, the application for registration of a person who rendered distinguished service to the State was determined to have failed to meet the criteria for disability rating as a result of the physical examination, if a person who received recognition of “a person who rendered distinguished service to the State” and received the determination of his/her