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

A. On June 15, 2009, the Plaintiff’s husband’s husband’s non-party 4 (hereinafter “the deceased”) entered the Army, and was on the part of the lower sergeant on September 30, 2009, and served as the head of the Ban at the △△ Group △ Group on the wall of the △△ Group. Nonparty 2, a senior noncommissioned Officer, among noncommissioned Officers, was an administrative distribution officer, and Nonparty 1, a senior senior of the deceased was the head of the Gu, and Nonparty 5, and Nonparty 6 served as the head of the Gu.

B. On March 3, 2012, the Deceased, Nonparty 5, and Nonparty 6 worked at the unit to prepare for the heat of the large-scale warehouse, which was scheduled to take March 5, 2012, and arranged the warehouse.

C. On March 3, 2012, Nonparty 1 called the Deceased to check whether other persons were to work at the office of the deceased, and then told the Deceased to have a defect in the meals of the executives. At around 17:00 on the same day, Nonparty 2 reported the situation of the warehouse organization and confirmed the warehouse arranged, and then heard Nonparty 1 that Nonparty 1 would share the same meals. Nonparty 5 and Nonparty 6 decided to share meals with the phone in the absence of call from the military unit.

D. At around 18:20 on March 3, 2012, Nonparty 2 provided meals to the restaurant located at a distance of four kilometers from the military unit with Nonparty 1, the Deceased, Nonparty 5, and Nonparty 6’s own vehicle. Suppers, Nonparty 2 appeared at Nonparty 2’s denial and their children. Nonparty 2 suggested that he drinks during a kind of meal, and drank together with the Deceased et al., and al., Nonparty 2 dices with the Deceased.

E. On March 3, 2012, Non-party 2 finished a short meal on around 21:0, and Non-party 2, the deceased, and Non-party 5, and Non-party 6, sent the front door to Non-party 1, Non-party 5, and Non-party 6, who fessing the front door, and fessing the singing room at the singing room, and the team fessing the front door to 2:30 on the day following the day at which the Gu head was fessing in the front of the restaurant.

F. At around 00:10 on March 4, 2012, Nonparty 2: (a) singing and singing in a singing room; (b) singing the Deceased out of the singing room, and talked with the Deceased about his usual work and external behavior; and (c) singing Nonparty 2 at the right side of the Deceased’s face one time with the words “whether he/she has been able to be interested in the deceased, or if he/she has been able to do so.”

G. At around 00:20 on March 4, 2012, Nonparty 2 calculated the cost of singing, and singing together with the deceased, etc. Around 00:50, the deceased her walked on a road to go to a △ apartment located in the Gangseo-gu Hongcheon-gun, the residence of which is located, with Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 1, and the deceased was used on the street in front of the Jeju-do farm located in the same Ri. At around 00:50, Nonparty 2 died of the first-aid vehicle, which was sent to the △▽▽▽▽△△△△ Hospital on the same day, with the first-aid vehicle around 01:43.

H. On May 24, 2012, Nonparty 2 was sentenced to the suspension of the execution of one year and six months for the death of the Deceased at the general military court of the Military Command headquarters, which became final and conclusive on June 1, 2012.

I. On April 16, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State and a person eligible for veteran’s compensation. On August 14, 2013, the Defendant rendered a decision on whether the deceased died of an accident caused by private activities that occurred after work hours.

(j) On November 8, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the decision on the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation on August 14, 2013, but all of the appeals were dismissed on March 11, 2014. The Plaintiff filed an administrative lawsuit against Chuncheon District Court 2014Guhap4519, and on January 30, 2015, the Deceased bears social common sense, such as the background leading up to the meeting, the scope of participants, and the cost of superior. In light of the fact that the Deceased’s participation in the meeting, he/she was in the position of being controlled or managed by his/her superior, and it is difficult for the Plaintiff to directly revoke his/her respective dispositions on the grounds that there was a lack of duty among his/her superior on the spot of the meeting, and that there was no reason to view the Plaintiff’s revocation of his/her respective dispositions on the grounds that there was a death and assault between his/her superior and his/her superior.

(k) On December 17, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for re-registration of a person eligible for veteran’s compensation with the Defendant. On April 19, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision on the non-conformity of the requirements for a person eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that it was not determined that the deceased died in the course of boosting morale under the command, control, and management of his/her father commander or his/her affiliated agency or during workplace events, on the ground that

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 6 evidence, Eul 1 to 8 evidence (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On holidays, the deceased worked in accordance with the instructions of Nonparty 1, a superior, for the purpose of performing his duties, and died of an assault that was caused by Nonparty 2 in the course of getting a decoration after being pointed out the lack of duties from Nonparty 2 on one-time form for the purpose of boosting the morale according to the orders of Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2, who is the highest level of the deceased. Even though the deceased can be viewed as a person who died of an accident or disaster during the command, control, and management of the head of his department or the head of his affiliated agency, the disposition of this case by the Defendant

B. Determination

If a soldier, etc. dies from an accident or a disaster during a morale or a workplace event, in order to regard the accident or a disaster as an "accident or a disaster" under Article 2 (1) 1 and Article 2 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran's Compensation, in light of the circumstances such as the organizer, purpose, content, number of participants and forcedness of the event or meeting, method of operation, burden of expenses, etc., it shall be deemed that the overall process of the event or meeting is in a state under the direction of the head of the unit to which he/she belongs or the head of the affiliated agency (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du1113, Nov. 10, 1998, etc.).

In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the deceased took part in the meeting on March 3, 2012, i.e., Nonparty 1’s proposal, the highest class of Nonparty 1’s superior, and the executive members of Nonparty 2 or lower, among the executive members of the affiliated unit, were present at the meeting, and that it appears to have been held for the purpose of encouragement and boosting morale, etc. after completing holiday work, Nonparty 2, the highest class of Nonparty 2 operated and moved to a restaurant. Nonparty 2, who performed drinking out of the meal, performed drinking out of the meal, and performed drinking out of the meal. After dividing the team, the team was fluencing with the music cost, and the group was fluencing and singing out, and then paid the singing cost, Nonparty 2 took part in the singing room, and Nonparty 2 was under the direction of Nonparty 2 under the social norms, in light of social norms.

If so, the deceased is a person who died of an accident or disaster during the morale of the head of the unit (department) to which he belongs or the head of the affiliated agency, or during the workplace events, and thus, the deceased's disposition of this case shall be revoked as unlawful, and the plaintiff's above assertion is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is accepted on the ground of the reasons.

Judges Kim Jong-young