2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The following facts are either disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by Gap evidence 1, 2, 4 through 8, Gap evidence 9-1 through 7, Gap evidence 10-1 through 6, Eul evidence 1 through 12, and the whole purport of the pleadings. There are no counter-proofs.

A. On July 8, 1981, the Plaintiff entered the Navy and was discharged on September 30, 1983. On December 23, 1997, the Plaintiff applied for registration to the Defendant as a person of distinguished service to the State or a person falling under Article 73-2 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (hereinafter “persons eligible to receive support”) on the ground that the Defendant was suffering from the wounds of the lelebal pelma in the present disability grade 3-5 at the time of the accident in the military unit near the military unit on April 23, 1983.

B. On April 2, 1998, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s above application (hereinafter the instant disposition) on the ground that the Plaintiff could not be deemed to have suffered from wounds while performing official duties.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

The Defendant asserts that the instant disposition is lawful in light of the background of the instant disposition and the relevant provisions of the relevant laws and regulations, and accordingly, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant disposition that rejected the registration was unlawful on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s refusal of the registration was unlawful, on the grounds that: (a) the Plaintiff: (b) obtained leave during military service and on the part of the military unit, he was he was frighted due to an accident he was accumulated in the military due to an accident that occurred during the military service; and (c) met the registration requirements of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State or persons eligible for assistance corresponding to them, who were soldiers or police officers on duty; (b)

B. Relevant statutes

(1) Article 6(1) of the Act provides that persons who intend to be persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State, their bereaved family members or families, or persons who intend to be persons falling under the provisions of Article 73-2 shall apply for registration to the Minister of Patriots and Veterans Affairs as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. The first sentence of Article 73(2) provides that persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State, their bereaved family members or families, or those who fall under the provisions of Article 73-2 shall be determined by the Minister of Patriots and Veterans Affairs after confirming their requirements, as prescribed by the Presidential Decree,

(2) Article 4 (1) 6 of the Act provides that a soldier or policeman who was discharged from active service or retired from office by suffering from wounds during education and training or in the performance of duty (including illness in official duties), and Article 73-2 of the Act provides that a soldier or policeman determined to have suffered physical disability falling within that degree of injury as determined by the Presidential Decree, in a physical examination conducted by the Minister, shall be a soldier or policeman wounded, and Article 73-2 of the Act provides that a soldier or policeman wounded who is not a soldier or policeman wounded on duty due to reasons corresponding to that determined by the Presidential Decree, shall be a soldier or policeman wounded on duty.

(3) Article 3-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the criteria for recognition of persons of distinguished service to the State, such as soldiers and policemen who were killed or wounded in action, soldiers and policemen who died on duty, soldiers and policemen who died on duty, soldiers who died on duty, public officials who died on duty, and public officials who died on duty, and soldiers who died on duty equivalent to those who have rendered distinguished service to the State under Article 73-2 of the Act shall be as shown in attached Table 1. The attached Table 1 provides that persons who have rendered distinguished service to the State shall be recognized as persons who have rendered distinguished service to the State under Article 4(2) of the same Act as persons who have rendered distinguished service to the State under Article 73-2 of the Act, with permission for leave, out-of-the-spot, and stay outside the country, for the wounds caused by an accident or a disaster during which they died on duty in accordance with the standard number 2-10.

(4) However, in the proviso of Article 3-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act, in cases falling under any of the following subparagraphs, it shall not be included in the relevant criteria (referring to the criteria for recognition of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for support). Each subparagraph of the above Article lists ① Death or wound occurred due to his/her intentional or gross negligence, or a significant violation of relevant statutes or orders of his/her superior officers, without any justifiable reason; ② Death or wound occurred due to an accident or disaster while leaving his/her official duty; ③ Death or wound occurred due to a private act not deemed as a cause such as a disaster or fighting; ④ Death or wound

(c) Markets:

If the plaintiff's assertion is recognized and it does not fall under the proviso of Article 3-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act, the difference in the difference in the Machina Machial Marma, which the plaintiff suffered, falls under the standard number 2-10 or 3-5 set forth in Article 3-2 [Attachment 1] of the above Enforcement Decree, and thus, the plaintiff may be registered as a person who has rendered distinguished services

Therefore, first of all, as to whether the plaintiff's assertion that he was injured due to an accident at the military unit near the Do unit during his leave of absence, the above facts are acknowledged, and all of the above documents are prepared by the plaintiff in order to submit them to the administrative agencies such as the defendant, and it is not believed that the circumstances leading up to the accident are not consistent, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the above facts.

Next, even if the plaintiff's assertion is recognized, it shall not fall under the proviso of Article 3-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act and shall meet the requirements to be registered as a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State or a person equivalent thereto. In full view of the statement of the accident circumstance attached to the evidence No. 10-6 and No. 8, and the purport of the oral argument in the testimony of the above Kim Jong-chul, the plaintiff at the time of the accident can recognize the fact that the plaintiff is injured by driving a mixed urba without a driver's license (at the second date for pleading, the plaintiff's own recognition is recognized) and driving the mixed urba without a driver's license (at the second date for pleading, the plaintiff himself is recognized). Unless there is clear evidence as to the fact that the accident occurred due to a person who has been accumulated in military service, it can be deemed that the accident due to a non-licenseed driving is gross negligence of the plaintiff or has

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s disposition that did not accept the Plaintiff’s application that did not meet the requirements to be a person who rendered distinguished services to the State or a person eligible to receive support for the military and police officers equivalent thereto is legitimate. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim seeking revocation on the premise that the above disposition

Judges Kim Yong-ho (Presiding Judge) Name of Gangwon-won