The revocation of rejection of bereaved family

A. On May 16, 2013, the Defendant’s disposition to deny the registration of bereaved family members of a person who rendered distinguished service to the Plaintiff is revoked.

B. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. Of the total litigation costs, 50% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

The judgment as above and the defendant's rejection of a person eligible for veteran's compensation against the plaintiff on May 16, 2013 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows, in addition to the part of the judgment stated in Chapters 5, 18, 7, and 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and is the same as the written judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

1) Relationship between the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran's Compensation and the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State

The Act on the Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran's Compensation (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on the Persons Eligible for Veteran's Compensation") was enacted on September 15, 201 and revised on the same day, and the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on the Persons of Distinguished Services to the State") was enforced on July 1, 2012, and the requirements of persons of distinguished services to the State were changed. In other words, unlike the revised Act, the persons who died in the course of performing their duties or education and training directly related to the national defense, security, or the protection of the lives and property of the people were honored as persons of distinguished services to the State pursuant to Article 4 (1) 5 of the Act on the Persons of Distinguished Services to the State, and were supported by persons who died in the course of performing their duties or education and training not directly related to the national defense and security, or the protection of the lives and property of the people.

2) Review of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State

First of all, examining whether the deceased is a soldier or policeman who died on duty under the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State, in order to constitute “the performance of duties or education and training directly related to the protection of national defense or security, or the protection of people’s lives and property” under Article 4(1)5 of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State, there should be direct relations between the performance of duties or education and training and the protection of people’s lives and property, and there should be proximate causal relation between such performance of duties or education and training and the death. Meanwhile, Article 4(6)1 of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State excludes cases where “the death of the deceased due to the intention or gross negligence of the deceased without any inevitable reason” from the category of persons of distinguished services to the State, which

In light of the above legal principles, the deceased’s assertion that it was impossible for the deceased to be aware of the foregoing facts, and the following facts were revealed by the evidence revealed. ① On June 11, 2012, the deceased’s death was caused by an emergency situation, such as the decrease of his/her military base in his/her service, and the deceased’s death, and thus, the deceased’s duty was directly related to the national defense and security. ② The deceased’s duty was not directly related to the deceased’s accident, and ② the deceased’s duty was not carried out on duty on June 17, 2012, and the military unit’s duty was not carried out for the above five days, and thus, it can be deemed that there was an inevitable cause for the accident to be carried out by the deceased’s central government during his/her duty of care and security, and ③ the deceased’s duty of care and care was not carried out by the deceased’s central government for the above five days.

3) Review of the Patriots and Veterans Compensation Act

The Deceased died while performing duties directly related to national defense and security.

As long as it is recognized, the deceased cannot be considered as a person eligible for veteran's compensation under Article 2 (1) 1 of the Patriots and Veterans Compensation Act. Thus, it is legitimate that the defendant's refusal to register as a person eligible for veteran's compensation to the plaintiff is legitimate. Therefore, the plaintiff'

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the claim in this case seeking the revocation of the bereaved family member's refusal disposition of this case among the claims in this case is justified, and the part seeking the revocation of the bereaved family member's refusal disposition of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, and the defendant's appeal is partially accepted and the judgment of

Judge Hong-man

Judge Choi Young-young