The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant's disposition of suspending payment of veterans' benefits against the plaintiff on August 4, 2014 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

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

The reasoning for this part of the court's explanation is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is accepted by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

The proviso of Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act stipulates that any person who has received a disaster compensation or a pension for wounds under other Acts and subordinate statutes is not entitled to claim compensation under the State Compensation Act, but does not stipulate any contrary cases. Since the Veterans Compensation Act does not include any provision excluding a person who has received State compensation from a person eligible for veteran's compensation, it is not possible to limit the payment of veteran's benefits even if he received State compensation under the State Compensation Act

2) The defendant's assertion

Since the proviso of Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act provides the principle of prohibition of double compensation, the payment of veteran's benefits can be suspended in the case of receiving the State compensation under the State Compensation Act.

B. Relevant statutes

The statutes related to the instant case shall be as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) The grounds for the instant disposition

The reasoning for this part of the Court's explanation is as follows: Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since it is the same as the stated in Section 2. (c) of the first instance court's decision.

2) Whether the instant disposition is lawful

The legislative purport of Article 29(2) of the Constitution and the proviso of Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act based thereon is to prevent the imbalance between the State and the injured soldiers, etc., and to prevent the occurrence of the same damage caused by the same damage to the State, by preventing excessive financial expenditure that may occur due to the same damage caused by the State, etc., and the imbalance between the injured soldiers, etc., and the injured soldiers, etc., from claiming compensation for damages due to a tort in the course of performing their duties, instead of ensuring that the injured soldiers, etc., may receive compensation for damages in a clear and uniform manner without any risk of insolvency, regardless of their negligence or degree, through a convenient compensation procedure, by operating the system for compensating for damages to soldiers, civilian employees, police officers, or homeland reserve forces members, etc. who perform dangerous duties. In addition, in the event a separate compensation system, such as disaster compensation, pension for wounds, etc., has been established, the State Compensation Act or the State itself cannot be ruled to exclude the compensation for damages from the State.

In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances, i.e., the State's compensation under the State Compensation Act and the State's compensation benefits under the State Compensation Act, if all claims for the State's compensation are possible if it is asserted by the Plaintiff, the State's compensation and the State's compensation benefits under the State Compensation Act can be entirely paid, but the State's compensation benefits can not be paid. If the amount of the State's compensation benefits differs depending on an unexpected circumstance, the purport of prohibiting dual compensation under the proviso of Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act is likely to be eliminated if the State's compensation benefits differ from the time after the lapse of time, and the State's compensation benefits cannot be paid for the purpose of interpreting Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act (the amount of the State's compensation benefits equivalent to the amount of the State's compensation benefits has already been paid to the Defendant as unjust enrichment, and the Defendant is also obliged to return the amount of the State's compensation benefits to the Defendant for the purpose of collecting the amount of the State's compensation benefits under the State Compensation Act.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair, and it is so revoked and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Sung-sung (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge)