2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

A. The deceased B (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") was on March 1, 2002 when he was on duty in the Navy on March 1, 2002. < Amended by Act No. 7870, Feb. 2, 2006>

6. Around April 9, 2007, the deceased transferred to the operation headquarters and worked as a watchkeeping officer, and the superior of the deceased imposed excessive duties on the deceased, and the deceased committed suicide on his own in the neighboring park of the military unit on his own, who took a bath and verbal abuse.

B. On March 17, 2008, the Plaintiff, the father of the deceased, filed an application for registration of bereaved family members of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State by asserting that the deceased constituted “a soldier who died while performing his duties” under the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State”). However, the Defendant on May 208.

14. The decision was made on the person who rendered distinguished services to the State. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the above disposition. On February 5, 2009, the first instance court rendered a decision accepting the Plaintiff’s claim on October 6, 2009. However, the appellate court revoked the original decision on October 6, 2009 and rendered a decision dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim, and the appellate court rendered a decision dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on January 28, 2010, and the judgment against the Plaintiff’s loss became final and conclusive (this Court Decision 2008Guhap472, Seoul High Court 2009-7167, and Supreme Court 2009Du1953).

C. On April 6, 2010, the deceased’s surviving families, including the Plaintiff, filed a lawsuit seeking damages against the Republic of Korea as Seoul Central District Court 2010Kahap34109, and the said court on October 13, 2010.

“The Defendant Republic of Korea declared that the mother of the Plaintiff and the Deceased would pay KRW 45,177,372, and KRW 2 million to the Deceased, and delay damages therefrom. The judgment became final and conclusive around that time. Accordingly, the surviving families of the Deceased received KRW 111,015,460 in total from the Republic of Korea.

D. On July 2, 2012, the Plaintiff again filed an application for registration as a bereaved family member of a person who has rendered distinguished service to the Defendant. The Defendant, on August 20, 2013, determined the Plaintiff as a bereaved family member of a person eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “the Veterans’ Compensation Act”) under Article 2(1)1 of the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation (hereinafter “the Veterans’ Compensation Act”), on the ground that the deceased did not meet the requirements for a person who has rendered distinguished service to the State, but meets the requirements for a person eligible for veteran’s compensation, and paid the Plaintiff veterans’ benefits.

E. However, according to Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act on August 4, 2014, the Defendant rendered a decision to suspend the payment of veteran's benefits to the Plaintiff on the ground that the amount of damages under the State Compensation Act and the amount of veteran's benefits paid at the Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs cannot be received in duplicate, but the Plaintiff paid it in duplicate to the Plaintiff (hereinafter "decision to suspend the payment of veteran's benefits").

[Grounds for Recognition] 1 to 4, and 7 Evidence A (including Serial Nos. 1 to 7), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the party's assertion (1) Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The proviso to Article 2 of the State Compensation Act does not stipulate that any person who has already received a compensation under the State Compensation Act shall not be entitled to claim a disaster compensation or a pension for wounds, etc. under other Acts and subordinate statutes, and there is no provision that excludes a person who has received a State compensation from a person eligible for veteran's compensation under the Veterans Compensation Act, and there is no legal basis to suspend or restrict the payment of veteran's benefits to his/her bereaved family members. Therefore, the instant disposition was made without any legal basis,

The purpose of Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act is to prohibit double compensation for death in relation to the performance of duties by a soldier, etc. Therefore, in cases of bereaved family members, etc. who already received the compensation for damage under the State Compensation Act, if they choose the compensation for damage by allowing them to choose from among the compensation for damage under the State Compensation Act and the veteran's benefits under the Veterans' Compensation Act, the payment of the veteran's benefits shall be suspended. If they choose the veteran's benefits, they shall be paid again from the time when the full amount of the compensation for damage already paid is recovered or the deduction is completed each month from the veteran's benefits already paid. If the plaintiff deducts the compensation for damage already paid from the veteran's benefits by requesting the veteran's benefits, the disposition of this case is legitimate.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related Acts and subordinate statutes.

C. Determination

(1) Acts and subordinate statutes on the instant disposition

In addition, on July 9, 2014, prior to the disposition of this case, the defendant notified the plaintiff on July 9, 2014 of "Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act and Article 75 (1) 3 (in case of erroneous payment) of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State," and on August 4, 2014, "the State Compensation Act and the State Compensation Act cannot be received in duplicate pursuant to Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act." In addition, the disposition of this case was taken on the ground that the plaintiff was paid veterans' benefits in accordance with the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State Compensation Act, and the type and contents of "the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State Compensation" are similar to the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State Compensation. In full view of the contents of the disposition of this case, Article 2 (1) of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State Compensation and the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State Compensation.

(2) The existence of the grounds for disposition under the Act on the Grounds for Disposition of this case (A) and the legal nature of compensation under the Act on the Compensation for Veterans' Compensation and the Act on the Compensation for Veterans' Compensation.

The liability under the State Compensation Act provides that the State Compensation Act is a remedy for the right to the illegal action of the State, which is a liability for tort of the State, and the proviso of Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act provides that "if a soldier, etc. was injured in the course of performing his/her duties, such as combat, etc., he/she or his/her bereaved family may not claim compensation for damages under this Act and the Civil Act."

On the other hand, Article 7 of the Patriots and Veterans Compensation Act provides that the Act intends to promote the stability of the lives of persons eligible for veteran's compensation who have made a sacrifice or contribution for the State and their bereaved families or families by providing reasonable support to them, and that the amount of compensation may vary depending on the degree of sacrifice of persons eligible for veteran's compensation, in consideration of their standard of living, age, etc. It cannot be denied that the amount of veteran's benefits is performing functions similar to compensation in that the amount of monetary loss of the victim or his/her bereaved family members who have made a substantial accident is changed. However, in light of the legislative intent of the Act on the Compensation for Veterans and Compensation for Veterans, the amount of veteran's benefits is not only having the social security character, but also having the fundamental purport or purpose of compensating for damage caused by the tort, since the honorable treatment of those who have made a sacrifice or sacrifice for the State,

(B) The relevant provisions and their interpretation1) The administrative laws and regulations, which serve as the basis for an aggressive administrative disposition, shall be strictly interpreted and applied, and they shall not be excessively expanded or analogically interpreted in the direction unfavorable to the other party to the administrative disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du11590, Sept. 20, 2007, etc.). (2) The State Compensation Act provides that when a soldier, etc. was injured on duty, he/she is entitled to receive accident compensation or wounded veterans’ pension, etc. pursuant to other Acts and subordinate statutes, he/she may not claim the State compensation separately, but on the other hand, the State compensation Act does not provide that accident compensation or wounded pension, etc. under other Acts and subordinate statutes shall not be claimed in cases where he/she has already been paid the amount of damages under the State Compensation Act, and there is no ground to regard a claim

In addition, Article 11 (1) of the Patriots and Veterans Compensation Act provides that "the person, police officers, etc. shall be paid the compensation, except the person excluded from the payment of compensation pursuant to this Act or other Acts," but there is no provision that the person who received compensation pursuant to the State Compensation Act is excluded from the payment of compensation, and as seen earlier, the State Compensation Act cannot be viewed as prohibiting the payment of compensation to the person who already received the State compensation. Thus, it cannot be seen that the person first received compensation pursuant to the State Compensation Act falls under the proviso of the above provision.

3) Furthermore, Article 22(1) of the Patriots and Veterans Compensation Act provides that "the right to receive veterans' benefits shall not be transferred or seized, and shall not be offered as a security." This aims to enhance the livelihood and welfare of persons eligible for veteran's compensation and guarantee their decent life. Thus, even if the Republic of Korea has a claim to return the compensation paid to the Plaintiff, it is impossible to suspend the payment of veteran's benefits under the Veterans Compensation Act or recover veteran's benefits already paid by exercising such right by realizing the legislative intent of the proviso of Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act.

(C) Sub-decisions

Therefore, even if the Plaintiff received compensation under the State Compensation Act, the instant disposition that suspended the payment of the Plaintiff’s veterans’ benefits on the ground that the Defendant did not have any legal basis for suspending or restricting the payment of compensation under the Patriots and Veterans Compensation Act, and on a different premise, erroneously paid the Plaintiff the amount of compensation and the amount of veterans’ benefits.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.

Suspension of the Judge

Judges Hong Dak-ray