The revocation of rejection of bereaved family

2. 1/2 of the total costs of the lawsuit after filing the appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

3. Section 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance was amended as follows, depending on the partial withdrawal of the claim by this court:

The defendant's disposition of refusal to pay veteran's compensation against the plaintiff on May 16, 2013 is revoked.

It is as stated in paragraph (3) of this Article.

2. Purport of appeal

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

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

2. Progress of the instant lawsuit and scope of the adjudication

The following facts are significant in this Court:

A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the revocation of the instant disposition (Scheon District Court 2014Guhap4649). At the time, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the instant disposition against the Defendant (Scheon District Court 2014Guhap4649), and filed a claim seeking the revocation of the disposition against the bereaved family members of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and the claim for the revocation of the disposition against the bereaved family members of persons eligible for veteran’s compensation. The court of first instance accepted the Plaintiff’s claim

C. The Defendant appealed against it (Seoul High Court (Chuncheon) 2015Nu252), and the judgment prior to remand was “the deceased while performing his duties directly related to national defense and security.”

As long as it is recognized, the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") can not be applicable to the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran's Compensation (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), the first instance judgment was changed to cancel only the disposition for refusal of the registration of bereaved family members of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State, and the plaintiff's claim against the disposition for refusal of the

C. The Defendant filed a second appeal against the part against the Defendant (Supreme Court Decision 2015Du56397). The Supreme Court, “In order to constitute the Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons of Distinguished Services to the State, the court of final appeal must die due to an accident or disaster that occurred directly related to the protection of the State, etc. In order to fall under the Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons of Distinguished Services to the State. However, in the case of the Deceased, proximate causal relation may be acknowledged between the diversary and the diversary driving due to emergency duty, etc., but it is difficult to deem that the emergency duty, etc. was the direct cause of death. Therefore, the disposition to refuse the registration of a person of distinguished services to the State is legitimate. Moreover, the first instance court reversed and remanded the judgment of the previous trial on the grounds that it is not compatible with the claim to revoke the registration of bereaved family members of the person of distinguished services to the State and the bereaved family members of the person of distinguished services.

D. After remanding the case, the Plaintiff voluntarily withdrawn the part on the claim for revocation of the refusal of registration of a bereaved family member of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State. Therefore, the scope of the instant judgment is limited to the claim for revocation of

3. Whether a disposition rejecting a person eligible for veteran's compensation is legitimate.

A. Summary of the parties' assertion

1) The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that “A death accident occurs due to driving while driving a car at G while driving the car in order to make a report on the next year’s situation at the time when the worker was accumulated due to his/her emergency duty, and a proximate causal relation should be acknowledged between the deceased’s performance of his/her duties and the death.”

2) On the other hand, the Defendant asserts to the effect that “as the deceased was an accident that occurred while driving a vehicle immediately after making his/her own promise, a proximate causal relation between his/her own gross negligence or private act may not be acknowledged between his/her duty and his/her death on the grounds that the cause of the accident occurred.”

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

In full view of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 and Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the following circumstances are recognized.

1) Around June 11, 2012, an emergency situation, such as the decline of a movement that could not be known in the Allied Zone near the 5th Sick Team of the Army, took place, and the Deceased called up a crisis response team. From June 11, 2012 to June 15, 2012, the Deceased was waiting for emergency work as F, and the Deceased waiting for the said emergency duty. After the emergency situation was terminated, the Deceased was on duty on June 17, 2012, and then went back to H around June 13:0 on June 18, 2012, the Deceased was going to come back to work again to prepare for a report on the situation of invasion on the next day.

2) While the Deceased took rest in a lodging room inside a unit, he was driving a motor vehicle for winters and low 20:00, and went out of the unit. In order to use an external restaurant in the location of the association headquarters at the time, the motor vehicle was inevitable to use it.

3) After the Deceased completed his and her meals, he and she worked for the unit to which they belong, taking into account the time when they return to the unit. At the time, he and she did not work on emergency duty and on duty, but should again make a report on the situation that he and she returned to G.

4) At around 22:20, while the Deceased was driven to return to its affiliated unit, it conflicts with the 25 tons truck, which was going against the opposite lane due to the negligence of the central line by driving a stroke in front of the National Highway of the 1st century, Gyeonggi-do, Gyeonggi National Cultural Center. Accordingly, the Deceased died at around 23:25 on the same day on the same day on the same day due to the serious injury to heavy scoke and scokes, etc.

5) After the death, it was proved that the deceased did not drink as a result of the deceased’s blood collection and inspection.

D. Determination

According to the above facts, although the death of the deceased was caused by stroke driving, it is reasonable to view that the cause of stroke driving is that the cause of strokeing was accumulated considerably due to the continuous night duty leading to the on-duty duty and the cause of strokeing the deceased's failure to properly waters. ② In addition, since the deceased was returned to an association headquarters for the performance of his duties according to normal route and method, even though the deceased was in the process of returning to the unit to which he belongs, there is sufficient proximate causal relation between the deceased's performance of duties and the deceased's death, even if the accident occurred in the course of returning the same after having his own stroke and private strokeing, and then taking the same back to the unit to which he belongs, it is unlawful to deny

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim for revocation of the disposition for refusal of the plaintiff's entitlement to veterans' compensation is reasonable, and the judgment of the court of the first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. However, the judgment of the court of the first instance is ordered to order the plaintiff to bear one-half of the total costs of the lawsuit after the appeal in consideration of the fact that the court of the first instance changed the defendant's partial withdrawal of the plaintiff's claim and the defendant's appeal is entirely dismissed following the plaintiff's partial withdrawal of the claim.

Judges Park Byung-chul

Judges' Branch Office Counter

A person shall be appointed.