1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

1. Following the confirmation of the judgment subject to a retrial is significant in this court:

The Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State in accordance with the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State on the ground that he/she sustained injury to his/her head during the Korean War on around 2009, around 2010, and on three occasions around 2012 as a person who participated in the Korean War as his/her volunteer police from March 1952 to June 1953, the Plaintiff was determined not to meet the requirements for persons of distinguished

B. On May 7, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State with the same content as above. However, on October 24, 2014, the Defendant rendered a decision that the requirements for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State are not acceptable on the ground that “In addition to the Plaintiff’s statement, objective evidence that could have suffered wounds in combat action or in the performance of duties equivalent thereto is not verified, and there is no reason to reverse the matters already

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

On June 22, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking revocation of the instant disposition (2015Gudan8704). On January 7, 2016, the instant court rendered a judgment subject to a retrial that dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim. D.

On January 12, 2016, the Plaintiff served a written notice of the judgment subject to a retrial, and submitted the petition of appeal to this court on January 22, 2016.

On January 26, 2016, the presiding judge of the case subject to reexamination ordered the plaintiff to make an order of correction concerning the stamp of appeal and the service fee.

However, the plaintiff did not pay the stamp and the service fee within the deadline even after receiving the above order of correction.

On February 12, 2016, the presiding judge of the case subject to reexamination ordered the plaintiff to dismiss the petition of appeal on the ground that the plaintiff failed to comply with the order of correction, and the above order was served on the plaintiff on February 17, 2016.

The plaintiff did not file an immediate appeal against an order to dismiss the petition of appeal within the period of the immediate appeal, and accordingly the decision subject to a retrial became final and conclusive on March 5, 2016.

2. To make entries in the attached Acts and subordinate statutes;