[국가유공자유족등록거부처분취소][공1994.10.1.(977),2549]
(a) Interpretation of 2-12 of the standard number No. 1 attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Honorable Treatment, etc. of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State; or the case holding that soldiers following lifesaving do not constitute persons of distinguished service to the State
A. Article 4(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State provides that "the person who has rendered distinguished service to the State shall be killed or wounded in an accident or disaster among the acts for public interest, such as the performance of his/her duty, the arrest of strong thiefs, and the arrest of people in connection with his/her status," based on attached Table 1-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State. Thus, even if a soldier killed after saving another person's life at risk due to an accident or a disaster, the act of lifesaving cannot be deemed as a person who has rendered distinguished service to the State, in light of the circumstances leading up to the act of lifesaving, etc., unless it is related to the soldier'
(b) The case holding that if the Army First Class 1 was occupied by a private person, regardless of his/her duties on holidays, with his/her own Matrimonial engagement and relatives, and saved his/her Matrimonial relationship with his/her Matrimonial relationship and Matrimonial relationship, etc. and benefiting therefrom, the act of lifesaving cannot be deemed as an act of a servant of the people related to his/her status as a soldier, and thus, it does not constitute a person of distinguished service to the State as defined in attached
Article 4 (1) 5 and Article 4 (2) of the Act on the Honorable Treatment, etc. of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State; attached Table 1 of Article 3-2 of the Enforcement Decree
A. Supreme Court Decision 91Nu2359 delivered on June 28, 1991 (Gong1991, 2051) 92Nu444 delivered on November 27, 1992 (Gong193Sang, 284)
[Judgment of the court below]
The Head of the Seoul Southern Veterans Branch Office
Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu10134 delivered on February 2, 1994
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.
Article 4 (1) 5 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State stipulates that a soldier who died in the course of education and training or in the performance of duty as one of the persons of distinguished service to the State. Article 4 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "the person who died or was injured by an accident or a disaster among the acts for public interest, such as performance of his duty to rescue soldiers, police officers, or public officials related to his status, or arrest of force thiefs, lifesaving, etc." shall be a person of distinguished service to the State. In light of the purpose of the above Act (Article 1), Article 4 (1) of the same Act, and Article 3-2 subparagraph 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which provides that a soldier killed in the course of performing his duty shall contribute to the promotion of his livelihood and improvement of welfare, and shall not be deemed as a person of distinguished service to the State who has contributed to the promotion of patriotism of the people, even if the soldier died while saving another person's life caused an accident or disaster.
As duly admitted by the court below, if the non-party of the Army First Class 1 was privately on the part of the non-party, regardless of whether he was on duty on a holiday, was on the part of the non-party, who was on the part of the non-party, and was on the part of the non-party, who was on the part of the non-party, and was on the part of the non-party, who was on the part of the non-party, was on the part of the non-party, and was on the part of the non-party's her mother and her mother and her mother who was on the part of the non-party, the act of the non-party's her mother and her mother was on the part of the non-party's her mother and her mother who was on the part of the non-party. Thus, the non-party's act of the non-party's her mother and her mother's her mother cannot be deemed as an act of a civil servant with regard to the status of the soldier.
All arguments are without merit.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)