Revocation

Attorney Yu-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

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

A. The deceased B, the spouse of the Plaintiff, entered the Army on July 5, 1951, and was discharged from military service on April 30, 1952.

B. The Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State, alleging that the net B suffered a total prize on the left part of the Korean War. On July 31, 2012, the Defendant recognized that “the left part and the YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

C. On April 5, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) as at the time of the 6th and 25th of Apr. 2016, 2016, the Plaintiff, on the left part, was the Plaintiff’s guns boomed on the front part; and (b) filed an additional application for registration with the person who rendered distinguished services to the State, claiming that the disease was aggravated due to the total of the said parts; and (c) died on November 8, 1967, the Plaintiff additionally filed an application for registration.

D. On August 29, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision non-conforming to the requirements of Article 4(1)4 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State on the ground that specific and objective data that could prove that the Deceased suffered the instant wounds during combat action or during the performance of his/her duties related thereto have not been verified.

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

[Ground of recognition] Each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 7, 9, 18, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is illegal;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) At the time of June 25, 200, in battles, the enemy forces were fluording the upper part of the deceased’s right part and fluoring the left part of the deceased, and the deceased died because of the injury to the right part of the part of the deceased, the deceased was unable to function properly, such as the death, and the deceased’s bluoral bluoral bluoral blusium and Nonparty C’s bluoral bluoral blus, inasmuch as the deceased’s blusium and Nonparty C’s blu

2) The Plaintiff was in the condition that the deceased was unable to remove the total booming on his left arms at the time of the discharge from active service, and thus, the Defendant’s Grade 7 judgment of Grade 7 should be revoked on the ground that the Plaintiff fell under Grade 6(2) and 7203 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (a person who remains booming on one of the bridges or bridges of one arms).

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) For a soldier or police officer to fall under the "person 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 a soldier or police officer discharged from military service or retired from military service by suffering from wounds in combat action or in the performance of duties corresponding thereto. The fact that a soldier or police officer discharged from military service was wounded in action or in the performance of duties corresponding thereto must be proved by the party asserting that such person was killed or wounded in action or in the performance of duties corresponding thereto (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Du18618, Dec. 8, 201; 2006Du14032, Dec. 7

2) 원고는 6·25 당시 전투 중 적군의 총탄이 망인의 오른쪽 복부를 관통한 후 명치 끝을 뚫고 지나 왼쪽 복부를 거쳐서 왼쪽 팔꿈치에 박혔고, 오른쪽 복부의 부상으로 배꼽보다 더 큰 구멍이 났으며, 결국 망인은 폐질환 등 내장이 제대로 기능하지 못하여 사망하였는데, 명예제대자명부(갑 제6호증의 3)의 부상개소에도 "左側傷骨折部 育破及 只骨部 育破" 라고 기재되어 있어 '명치끝을 다쳤다(言破)'는 점이 명백하므로 오른쪽 복부 총상을 추가 상이로 인정하여야 한다고 주장한다.

살피건대, ① 이 법원의 진료기록감정촉탁의는 감정회신 및 감정보완회신에서 의학적으로 i) 복부를 관통한 총탄이 흉부의 명치끝을 지나 왼쪽 복부를 거쳐 왼쪽 팔꿈치에 박힌다는 추정은 가능하지 아니하고, ii) 원고 주장과 같은 총상이 있었다면 명예제대자 명부에 관통된 총상이라는 기재가 있어야 하는데 그러한 내용이 기재되어 있지 아니하며, iii) 복부를 관통한 총탄이 흉부의 명치끝을 지나 왼쪽 복부를 거친다면 간, 위장, 췌장 또는 폐 등 생명과 관련된 장기손상이 동반될 가능성이 높아 척골부 황파보다 그러한 부상개소에 대하여 우선 기술되어야 하지만 그러한 장기 손상에 대한 기재가 없다고 회신한 점, ② 명예제대자 명부에 나타난 다른 부상자의 부상개소를 표현한 방식을 보건대, 망인 바로 아래 부상자의 부상개소를 보면 '右大腿部 實'이라고 표현하여 왼쪽에는 ~ 部로 부상부위를 적고, 오른쪽에는 부상부위의 상이 경위를 표현하는 방식을 취하고 있는 점, ③ 원고 주장처럼 황파로 해석하면, i) "左側爲骨折部破 及 R骨部 破", 즉 명치끝을 부상당했다는 내용을 중복하여 기재한 것이 되어 명예제대자 명부의 부상개소 기재방식에 비추어 매우 이례적이고, ii) 명예제대자 명부에 기재된 대부분의 부상자들이 "총알이 명치끝을 관통하였다"는 것이 되는바, 망인이 기재된 명예제대자 명부의 같은 페이지에 부상개소가 명치끝인 부상자들이 다수 존재한다는 것은 어색한 점 고려할 때, 위 명예제대자 명부의 기재만으로 망인의 오른쪽 복부를 관통한 총탄이 흉부의 명치끝을 뚫고 지나 왼쪽 복부를 거쳐서 왼쪽 팔꿈치에 박혔다고 보기 어렵고, 거기에 C의 진술(갑 제7호증의 3, 갑 제13호증)과 원고의 진술을 보태어 보더라도 이를 인정하기에 부족하다[오히려 위 명예제대자 명부에 기재된 育破는 맹관총창(盲管銃瘡, 총알이나 파편 따위가 들어간 구멍만 있고 나온 구멍이 없는, 즉, 몸 안에 총알이나 파편이 머물러 있는 상태)를 의미하는 것으로 보인다.

3) The Plaintiff asserts that, as the deceased was unable to remove the total booming on his left arms at the time he was discharged from active service, the Plaintiff constitutes class 6(2) and class 7203 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (one of the bridges of one arms or the bridges of one arms) on July 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State.

The lawsuit in this case deals with the cancellation of the disposition of this case that the plaintiff refused to accept the application by recognizing the plaintiff as an additional prize on April 5, 2016, "the total number of the original parts of the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "the difference in this case"). The plaintiff's assertion is dissatisfied with the decision that the plaintiff judged that the plaintiff falls under class 7 grade 401 of the disability rating of the deceased on July 31, 2012, and thus, it is not accepted ( even if the plaintiff's claim was selected as included in the cause of the claim in this case, the date on which the lawsuit in this case was filed ( September 5, 2016) is more than 90 days from the date of the above decision ( July 31, 2012) (the date on which the lawsuit in this case was filed).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

/Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons of Distinguished Service

Article 4 (Persons of Distinguished Service to State)

(1) Persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and their bereaved family members or families falling under any of the following subparagraphs (other Acts):

Any person who is provided with the honorable treatment, etc. under this Act shall be entitled to honorable treatment under this Act.

4. Soldiers or police officers wounded in action: Soldiers or police officers wounded in action or in the line of duty corresponding thereto;

discharge from military service (including retirement from military service, exemption from military service, or discharge from full-time reserve service; hereinafter the same shall apply) or retirement from military service upon receipt of such

(including) A person who was involved (a civilian military employee, who was killed in action or corresponding thereto on or before December 31, 1959; hereinafter the same shall apply);

The Minister of Patriots and Veterans Affairs shall implement the degree of disability of a person who retired from post by suffering from wounds during his/her duties

A person whose disability rating has been determined under Article 6-4 (hereinafter referred to as "disease rating") in a physical examination conducted in the Republic of Korea

/ Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons of Distinguished Service

Article 3 (Standards and Scope of Requirements for Persons of Distinguished Services to State)

(1) The standards and scope of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State under Article 4 (2) of the Act shall be as follows:

2. Persons falling under Article 4 (1) 4 of the Act: those falling under any of subparagraph 1-1 through 1-7 of attached Table 1;

applicable wounded persons

[Attachment 1]

Criteria for and scope of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State (Article 3 related thereto)

1. A person who has been killed or wounded in combat action or in the performance of duties corresponding thereto;

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

[Attachment 3]

Article 14 (Relationship Table of Disability Ratings)

7. Obstruction of arms and fingers;

A person shall be appointed.

Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (Presidential Decree No. 2386, Jun. 37

2385 (amended by Act No. 23885)

Article 14 (Relationship Table of Disability Ratings)

A person shall be appointed.