Attorney Yu-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On July 5, 1951, the Plaintiff’s husband B (hereinafter “the deceased”) entered the Army and was discharged from military service on April 30, 1952, but died on November 8, 1967.

B. On April 16, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State by asserting that he/she sustained a total amount of money on the left part of the Korean War. The head of the YYY recognized that he/she fell under the requirements for compensation in action on July 31, 2012, following deliberation and resolution by the Board of Patriots and Veterans Affairs on July 31, 2012 and the YY 2) as a bereaved family member (Grade 7401) of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “the Act on the Honorable Services to the State”) under Article 4(1)4 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of and Support for Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State. (hereinafter “existing disability rating”)

C. On April 5, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) as at the time of June 25, 2016, she was fluored to the right part of the enemy forces’s arms in battle, leading up to the left part; and (b) died on November 8, 1967 due to the aggravation of the sick status due to the total of the parts of the said uniforms; (c) filed an application for additional registration with the person of distinguished service to the State (hereinafter referred to as the “application of this case”).

D. On August 29, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision that the Defendant does not meet the requirements of Article 4(1)4 of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State on the part of the upper part of the upper part, on the ground that “No specific and objective data that can prove that the deceased has sustained the whole part of the right parts in combat action or in the performance of duties in relation thereto” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. The Plaintiff appealed and filed the instant lawsuit on September 5, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 7, 9, 18, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5 (including additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) 6·25 당시 전투 중 적군의 총탄이 망인의 오른쪽 복부를 관통한 후 명치 3) 끝을 뚫고 지나 왼쪽 복부를 거쳐 왼쪽 팔꿈치에 박혔고, 그 결과 망인은 오른쪽 복부의 부상으로 폐질환 등 내장이 제대로 기능하지 못하여 사망하였다. 망인의 병상일지는 없으나, 명예제대자명부(갑 제6호증의 3)의 부상개소에도 "左側傷骨折部 투破 及 尺骨部 育破(좌측상골절부 황파 급 척골부 황파)"라고 기재되어 있어 '명치끝을 다쳤다(破)'는 점이 명백하고, C의 인우보증서도 이에 부합한다. 따라서 망인의 오른쪽 복부 총상에 대하여 국가유공자(전상군경) 추가상이 등록신청이 인용되어야 하므로, 피고의 이 사건 처분은 위법하다.

2) The Plaintiff was in a state where the deceased was unable to remove the total booming on his left arms at the time of the discharge from active service, and thus, constitutes part 6-2 and 7203 of the disability of the arms and fingers (one part of the bridges or dus of one arms) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State, and thus, the refusal of the above determination should be raised to Grade 6 of the existing disability rating is illegal.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Facts of recognition

A) On September 29, 1951, the Deceased was discharged on April 30, 1952 from the military hospital of the 23th Army via the 27th Army Hospital, and was discharged from military service on September 30, 1952.

나) 명예제대자 명부에는 '부상연월일 1951. 9. 29., 부상장소 양구, 부상개소 左側傷骨折部 다 及 尺骨部 (좌측상골절부 황파 급 척골부 황파), 부상정도 輕(경), 복무가부 (부)'로 기재되어 있다.

C) On May 23, 2012, according to the letter of confirmation related to the requirements of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State, etc. by the Army Chief of Staff, the deceased’s name of the soldiers on the part of the deceased is 'FF’, 'FFFF on the part of the upper part of the earth

D) On June 25, 2012, the Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs recognized that the left-hand team and the Ma Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-un

E) According to the record inquiry about the Army Records Information Management Agency, the deceased’s beds are not kept. At the time of June 25, 200, the military hospital was unable to properly prepare and keep the records of duty, such as beds, due to multiple patients’ treatment, frequent military movement, etc., or failed to transfer them to the Record Information Management Agency.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 19, 20, and the fact-finding results for the Army Obligations Headquarters of the first instance court, the Army Headquarters of the Army, and the Information Management Agency of the Army Records, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2) Whether the deceased was on the part of the right part of the deceased

A) For a soldier or police officer to fall under the "persons killed or wounded in action" under Article 4 (1) 4 of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State, it should be applicable to cases where a soldier or police officer was wounded in combat action or in the performance of duties corresponding thereto and discharged from military service or retired from military service. The fact that a soldier or police officer was wounded in action or in the performance of duties corresponding thereto, and that such soldier or police officer was wounded in action or in the performance of duties corresponding thereto, must be attested by the party asserting such wounded (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Du18618, Dec. 8, 201; 2006Du14032, Dec.

B) As a result of the above evidence and the commission of appraisal and supplementary appraisal to the Association of the first instance court, considering the following circumstances revealed by the purport of the entire pleadings, the statement of evidence Nos. 6, 7, and 13 is difficult to recognize that a guns were fluoring into the left part of the deceased’s right part, and fluoring the end of the chest’s name tag, and fluoring into the left part via the left part, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

① The request for appraisal of medical records in the first instance court is a clerical error that shows that the investment and the person in bankruptcy entered in the list of honorary candidates are similar to those of the investment. It is deemed that the term "master" (an injury in the state where the total known is not dead due to the termination of the master pool in bankruptcy, the reduction of the body due to the reduction of the body of the master pool in bankruptcy, and ii) otherwise, the interpretation that the bankruptcy in bankruptcy is regarded as an ordinary trade of the master book is not correct when considering the relationship with the words before and after the filing of the list of honorary candidates, and there is no possibility that the body would be damaged by the master book of the plaintiff (the presumption that the body would be sold to the left part after the expiration of the name of the chest and the body of the deceased), but there is no possibility that the body would be damaged by the master book of the plaintiff, such as the body of the deceased, and there is no possibility that the body would be damaged by the master book of the plaintiff.

② In addition, the above request for appraisal of medical records was made to state the state of injury after recording the injury part, and it was not general to state the injury part after recording the injury part without entering the injury part in the state of injury.

실제로 명예제대자 명부에서 망인 바로 아래 기재된 다른 부상자의 부상개소를 표현한 방식을 보면, 右下 打傷 骨折(우하퇴 타박상 골절), 腰部 及 j部 打業傷(요부급 흉부 타박상), 右大腿部 貫銃(우대퇴부 관총) 등이라고 표현하여 왼쪽에는 ~ (部)로 부상부위를 적고, 오른쪽에는 부상부위의 부상상태를 표현하는 방식을 취하고 있다. 그런데 원고 주장처럼 破를 황파로 해석하면 망인의 부상개소인 左側傷骨折部 투破 及 尺骨部破는 좌측상골절부 명치끝을 부상당하고 척골부 명치끝을 부상당했다는 의미가 되는데, 좌측상골절부와 척골부가 어떠하다는 의미가 생략되어 어색하고 명치끝을 부상당했다는 내용이 불필요하게 중복 기재된 셈이어서 명예제대자 명부의 부상개소기 재방식에 부합하지 아니하고, 망인 외에도 명치끝을 부상당한 다른 부상자가 지나치게 많이 존재하는 결과가 되어 합리적이지 않다.

It is natural to interpret that it is a situation in which the general notice passed from the distribution to the uniforms and remains in the body of the body, even though it is stated in the bankruptcy of the state of registration from the misunderstanding to the place of injury of another injured.

그리고 총알이 몸을 관통하여 생긴 상처를 관통총창(貫通疏創)이라고 하는데, 명예제대자 명부에서는 위와 같이 貫銃이라고 표현하여 투破와 대비되는 상처라고 볼 수 있다.

Therefore, it is reasonable to see that the bankruptcy in the list of honorary candidates is a clerical error in the bankruptcy.

③ The statement of C and the plaintiff are the statements that C depend on the subjective memory of the deceased as the wife of the deceased, and those who have an interest in the instant disposition as the wife of the deceased. C and the plaintiff are merely confirmed after the deceased was discharged from active service on April 30, 1952, and did not directly witness the deceased who was injured during battle. On April 16, 2012, the plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State who was unable to be recognized as having been specialized in the deceased's major, because C and the plaintiff applied for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State, with different applications for registration of a total of the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 's part' part

3) Judgment on the argument that the rejection disposition against the existing disability rating is illegal

The plaintiff asserts that since the deceased was unable to remove the total shot on the left side at the time he was discharged from active service, the plaintiff constitutes the 6th class 2 and 7203 of the 6th class 7th class 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State (a person who remains shot in one of the bridges of one arms or the bridges of one arms).

In light of the above, the plaintiff only sought the revocation of the disposition of this case as the purport of the claim. ① The purport of the application of this case is to recognize the whole right part of the right part as an additional prize and to register it as a person of distinguished service to the State. It does not include any difference in the existing disability rating on the left part and the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part. ② The disposition of this case also cannot be viewed as an expression of intention of the administrative agency refusing to raise the existing disability rating on the left part and the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part. ③ It is hard to view that the plaintiff's existing disability rating was subject to the disposition of this case's refusal to seek revocation of the existing disability rating of this case's refusal to seek revocation of the disability rating of this case's refusal by considering the different types (see Supreme Court Decisions 2011Du9263, Feb. 14, 2013).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges Gin Sung-ju

Judges Hong Man-man

2) There are two elbows and two boness on the parts of arms from arms to hand.

3) 사람의 가슴뼈 아래 오목하게 들어간 곳을 말한다.

4) (Flags) One in a shape similar to that of a scenic end (Flag, snow mar, snow marbl) is located.

5) Even if the purport of the Plaintiff’s claim as above is to seek revocation of the existing disability rating decision as of July 31, 2012, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on September 5, 2016, and thus, is unlawful as the 90-day filing period expires.

A person shall be appointed.