beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2010.11.19.선고 2008구단5920 판결

국가유공자유족비해당결정처분취소

Cases

208Gudan5920 Disposition of revocation of a decision equivalent to a person of distinguished service to the State;

Plaintiff

Ho○○ (61-years, South)

Ansan-si

Law Firm AA

Attorney Ro-ok

Defendant

Head of Suwon Veterans Branch Office

Litigation performer Ma-○

Conclusion of Pleadings

October 1, 2010

Imposition of Judgment

November 19, 2010

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim

The defendant's decision on March 20, 2008 that constitutes a person who rendered distinguished services to the State shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 13, 2007, the Plaintiff’s son, entered the Army on September 13, 2007, and transferred to the Gyeonggi Provincial Police Agency, military police station, and police station on November 2, 2007, and then was committed suicide on November 12, 2007 during the time he was on the part of the guard traffic and transportation, and on November 15, 2007 during the time he was on the part of the non-traffic workers.

B. On December 20, 2007, the Plaintiff asserted that the deceased constituted “the deceased’s person who died on duty” under the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, and applied for registration of bereaved family members of a person of distinguished service to the State.

C. Accordingly, on March 20, 2008 after the deliberation and resolution of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement, the Defendant determined that “the death of the deceased cannot be deemed as an act deviating from the free will in the state of mental disorder, and thus, constitutes self-injury as stipulated in Article 4(5)4 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State, etc., and the death of the deceased is likely to be recognized as proximate causal relation with the military performance of official duties, and the deceased did not constitute a person who has rendered distinguished service to the State (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Deceased’s death was caused by mental stress on his duties while in military service and the harsh desire of the deceased, it was unlawful for the Defendant’s disposition based on a different premise, even though there was proximate causal relation with the deceased’s performance of military study and did not constitute death by self-injury because it did not constitute death by self-injury as a result of the deceased’s free will.

(b) Related statutes;

(1) Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (amended by Act No. 8566 of July 27, 2007)

Article 4 (Persons who have rendered Distinguished Services to State)

(1) Persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and their bereaved family members, etc., who fall under any of the following subparagraphs (subject to honorable treatment provided for in this Act

shall be entitled to honorable treatment under this Act.

5. Soldiers or policemen who died on duty: Persons falling under any of the following items:

(a) A soldier or policeman who died in the course of education and training or in the performance of duty (a)

(including a person)

(5) Persons who meet the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (1) 3 through 6, 11 or 12 shall be all persons.

shall be subject to the provisions of paragraph (1) and Article 6, in the case of death or injury due to a cause falling under any of the following subparagraphs:

(1) Persons of distinguished services to the State who are registered and their bereaved family members or families shall be excluded.

1. Where it is due to intention or gross negligence of the principal without any inevitable reason or without any inevitable reason;

Where an order of his/her superior officer is seriously violated;

2. Where it is caused by an accident or disaster while he deserts his official duties; and

3. Where a private act which cannot be deemed as a performance of duties, such as a fighting match, has caused it;

4. Where he/she does self-harm.

(c) Facts of recognition;

(1) On February 16, 1989, the Deceased was on the leave of absence during the first-year course of the University, and was on September 13, 2007, after entering the Army and under training for new illness on November 2, 2007: Around 00, the Deceased was assigned to the Gyeonggi Provincial Police Agency, Military Police Agency, Military Police Station, and Police Station.

(2) The Deceased was engaged in a simple election campaign on November 3, 2007 ( Saturdays) and April 3, 2007 ( Sundays), and his parent was Myeonged, and was placed on November 5, 2007, and was placed on a traffic control map.

Preparation, etc., and on November 6, 2007, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport went away from the traffic control system during the period of education at the next traffic control system for the incidental adaptation training for two weeks at the morning, and committed suicide within 12:00 on the same day, and around 19:0 on the same day.

(3) After the Deceased moved into the Military Military Police Station, on November 2, 2007: 19: 53 around November 13, 2007: 59 and around 14: 55 around 14: 20:0 on a total of four occasions, the Deceased asked him/her of the telephone, and asked him/her of the telephone inside four occasions, and made a call with him/her.

On November 6, 2007, immediately before committing suicide, the deceased called on November 11, 2007: 38, to the public telephone-only in the boundary of the Military Police Station and called "I have left the police station".

(4) According to a confirmation of facts pertaining to the requirements for persons, etc. of distinguished service to the State on January 8, 2008 prepared by the commissioner of the Gyeonggi-do Police Agency, the deceased’s affiliation at the time of his death was stated as “the Gun Police Station” on November 6, 2007, “the date of death was furine,” “the place of death was furineless apartment,” “the cause and name of the death was furine,” “the direct death was furite: the training and the pulmonary injury of the first class, the first class of the death was durine,” “the first class of the death was farite, the first class of the death was durine, the first class of the death was farite, the first class of the death was farite, and the first class of the death was farited with the transportation without permission of the 15th class of the Gun Police Station on November 2, 2007.

(5) On the ground that ○○○○, a member of the deceased, who had been living in the military base like the deceased, gave a cancer engineer call to the deceased and had an in-depth burden on the deceased, it was subject to disciplinary action for 15 days in Chang-gu, each on the ground that ○○○, a member of the deceased, was in the military base on the ground that he had a serious burden on the deceased, and that she was a person with a longer disability at the time of a diversing by a changer and a person with a nose, and had an in-depth burden on the deceased at the time of a changer.

[Grounds for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 7-1 to 3, Eul evidence 2-1, 2, and change

The purpose of the whole theory

D. Determination

(1) “Death due to an act of self-injury which is excluded from the registration of a person of distinguished service to the State” under the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State shall be deemed to mean the death according to their grammatic meaning. In light of the purport of the Act with the aim of promoting the stability of life and the improvement of welfare and contributing to the cultivation of people’s patriotism by providing honorable treatment to persons of distinguished service to the State or their bereaved family members, it shall not be deemed to be free solely based on the circumstance that the military person’s cruel act committed by his superior, etc., or by causing severe stress in the course of performing his duty, resulted in suicide as a direct or important cause. Whether such suicide depends on the free will of the person of distinguished service to the State, the age, character and position of the person of distinguished service to the State, the degree and duration of tension caused by stress on duty to persons of distinguished service to the State, the physical and mental situation of persons of distinguished service to the State, 200 6.

(2) In light of the following circumstances: (a) the deceased was on February 16, 1989 who was living in his/her normal family life and was 18 years old at the time of his/her death, and (b) the deceased was on board the Army without physical education and training, and (c) on November 2, 2007, he/she was transferred to the Cheongpo Military Police Station in order to prevent the deceased from becoming aware of his/her suicide by taking into account his/her physical and mental harm and the overall purport of his/her oral arguments; (d) the deceased’s physical and mental harm caused by his/her death; and (e) the deceased’s physical and mental harm caused by his/her death to be transferred to the fourth military police station at the time of his/her death; and (e) the deceased’s physical and mental harm caused by his/her death; and (e) the deceased was deemed to have been discharged from various mental harm caused by his/her death, and thus, he/she did not seem to have been subject to any excessive disciplinary action against the deceased.

(3) Accordingly, the Defendant’s instant disposition that the Plaintiff deemed that the deceased’s death constitutes self-injury under Article 4(5)4 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State is legitimate, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges

Judges Ish Sung-hee