1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport, purport, ..

1. The following facts are acknowledged according to the records of this case’s judgment subject to review.

A. On March 14, 1968, the Plaintiff entered the Army and discharged from military service on February 6, 1971, and applied for registration (re-registration) of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State to the Defendant on July 16, 2013. However, on November 18, 2013, the Defendant rejected the application on the ground that there was no proximate causal relation with the military service.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). (b)

On November 27, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant disposition, and the Seoul Administrative Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on June 25, 2014.

(2013Gudan23983). The Plaintiff appealed on July 4, 2014, and this court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on December 23, 2014.

(2) On December 30, 2014, the Plaintiff served a certified copy of the original judgment subject to a retrial but did not file an appeal, which became final and conclusive on January 14, 2015.

2. Whether the litigation for retrial of this case is legitimate

A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion that the judgment subject to a retrial did not contain objective data, such as the beds for the instant wounds, is the State’s responsibility, and thus, ought to be substituted by the letter of personal guarantee instead of the beds, there exists grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. The judgment subject to a judgment was explicitly determined to the effect that it is difficult to substitute the absence of relevant medical records as a letter of guarantee through the form of additional judgment on the judgment of the first instance.

Therefore, the grounds alleged by the Plaintiff do not constitute grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act (when the judgment was omitted on important matters affecting the judgment).

Even if it falls under a cause for retrial, whether it is a cause for retrial under Article 451 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act is omitted or not shall be served with the original judgment.