[국가유공자등록거부처분취소][공1999.4.15.(80),682]
[1] The requirements to constitute an accident or accident that was committed during the course of destination with leave under Article 3-2 [Attachment 1] 2-10 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Honorable Treatment, etc. of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State
[2] The case holding that an accident does not constitute an accident or accident that was committed in the course of destination by obtaining leave prescribed in attached Table 1 2-10 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Honorable Treatment of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State on the ground that the accident occurred while attending the destination of leave and leaving his duties
[1] Article 4 (1) 5 of the former Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State (amended by Act No. 5291 of Jan. 13, 1997) stipulates that the person who died while on duty as a soldier shall be eligible for the application of the Act. Article 3-2 [Attachment Table 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15486 of Sep. 30, 1997) based on Article 4 (2) of the same Act provides that "the cases of "the death or wound or wound caused during the course of duty or during the period of time or during the period of time, during which the soldier died during his/her leave of absence, shall be deemed to fall under the requirements for the recognition of persons of distinguished service to the State." Thus, in order to be recognized as "an accident or accident caused during his/her destination by an accident or disaster" that occurred during his/her day-to-day leave and shall not be deemed to fall under the purpose of the Act during his/her normal leave.
[2] The case holding that an accident does not constitute an accident or accident that occurred during the course of destination with leave specified in [Attachment 1] 2-10 of Article 3-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Honorable Treatment of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State Act on the ground that the accident occurred while attending the destination for leave and leaving office
[1] Article 4 (1) 5 and (2) of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of and Support for Persons of Distinguished Services to the State, Article 3-2 [Attached Table 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of and Support for Persons of Distinguished Services to the State / [2] Article 4 (1) 5 and (2)
Plaintiff
The Head of the Seoul Southern Veterans Branch Office
Seoul High Court Decision 97Gu28638 delivered on November 5, 1998
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
Article 4(1)5 of the former Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State (amended by Act No. 5291, Jan. 13, 1997; hereinafter referred to as the "Act") stipulates that a soldier who died while on duty as a soldier is eligible for the application of the Act. Article 4(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15486, Sep. 30, 1997; hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree") provides that "the case of "the death or wound or wound caused by an accident or accident occurred during or during his/her destination with the permission for outing, going out, or going out of the country" shall be deemed to meet the requirements for the recognition of a person of distinguished service to the State. Thus, if a soldier died during his/her leave due to an accident or accident during his/her destination, the accident or accident shall be recognized as an "accident or accident occurred during his/her official leave due to a private accident or accident that occurred during his/her destination during his/her work."
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the deceased non-party 1 was a soldier working in the medical room room of the Navy, who died on August 12, 1996. The deceased non-party 2 was entitled to leave until August 17, 1996, with his family members living in Daejeon, Gwangju, or Dong-gun on the day after he arrived at his husband's friendship at the meeting near the place where the deceased died. The court below held that the above non-party 1 was deceased on the ground that the non-party 2 was deceased on the ground of the above 3-day shock truck of the deceased, and that the non-party 1 was deceased on the ground that the non-party 2 died on the ground of the above 3-day shock truck of the deceased, and that the non-party 1 was deceased on the ground that the non-party 2 died on the day after the above 3-day shock of the deceased, and that the non-party 1 died on the duty of care of the deceased and the deceased's family members living in the above 1-day.
In addition, among the judgment of the court below, the part that judged that the above deceased was under the circumstance that he was under the beginning booming, and that he was under the influence of his will, is merely a family and additional judgment based on the plaintiff's assertion, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence that may affect the conclusion of the judgment, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no error in the rules
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)