[2] In a case where the public interest service personnel Gap was involved in the patient relief service at the 119 emergency rescue team and was under the procedure of refeudal scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic s

[2] In a case where public duty personnel Gap suffered from a traffic accident while providing patient relief support services at the 119 emergency medical service team, and went through a ssule sule sule sule sule sule sule sule sule sule sule sule sule sule sule sule sule sule sule sule sule sule sule sule sule sule sule sule sule 7 meters on the sule sule sule sule sule sule sule sule sule sule sule sule sule sule sule 3m sule sule sule sule sul, the case holding that the judgment below erred 707 meters s

1. In full view of the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined as follows: (a) the Plaintiff’s instability caused by the Plaintiff’s damage to the lelebroids is at least seven meters, and the instability caused by damage to the side lebroids is at least three meters, and the Plaintiff constitutes 10 meters, if the instability caused by such damage to the side lebroids is combined; (b) thus, the Plaintiff constitutes a person whose disability classification number is at least ten meters in [Attachment Table 4] of Article 8-3 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 984, Jun. 29, 2012; hereinafter “former Enforcement Rule of the Act”).

2. However, we cannot accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

A. Article 14(3) [Attachment 3] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23885, Jun. 27, 2012; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree”) provides for an overall grading standard according to the degree of disability to be determined under class 7 and 807 of a disability rating for one of the three major sections of the same bridge. Article 8-3 [Attachment 4] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that “a person who has a physical disability in the face of the Do, despite appropriate treatment, has a disability in the face of the 7th degree of the 7th degree of the disability rating” under Article 8-7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23885, Jun. 27, 2012) shall be limited to a person whose disability rating is at least 10 meters in the physical disability rating of the two or more.

In light of the contents and purport of each Act and subordinate statutes, where disability level overlaps, the rate of loss of labor ability is determined by adding up the loss rate in each area without simply assessing the loss rate in many numbers and by multiplying the remaining loss rate by a small number (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da21576, Oct. 12, 1993). In light of the following, even if the direction differs from each other, it is difficult to deem that the overall instability is difficult to view that the overall instability is a simple instability, such as in the case of the same direction instability, even if the degree of the instability is calculated by taking account of the difference between the two directions, even if the degree of the instability is calculated by adding up the treatment rate after the occurrence of the number of several persons on the Man-Cirs at the time of the instant disposition, even if the direction of less than the treatment grade remains unstable, it cannot be said that there is a difference in the simple disability rating.

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the plaintiff was involved in a traffic accident while performing patient relief assistance activities at the 119 emergency medical service personnel's 119 emergency medical service, and the plaintiff was involved in a traffic accident, and was administered for scambling, which is the scambre in the inside side of the scambre in the scambre in the inside of the scambre, and the scambre in the inside of the scambre in the scambre. However, compared to the opposite side of the plaintiff's scambre, the plaintiff's scambre and 3m in the inside of the scambre in the face of the scambre in the face of the 119 emergency medical service. In light of the above legal principles, it is difficult to view the degree of each wound caused by damage to the scambre in the face of the scambre in the face of the 7m.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined otherwise, on the ground that the Plaintiff constituted class 7 and class 807 of the above disability classification number on the ground that the Plaintiff’s instability caused by the Plaintiff’s damage to the Plaintiff’s slot Cross and the instability caused by the damage to the side of the side of the Plaintiff in the slot Cross constitutes at least 10m. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on disability rating, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation in the grounds of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Shin (Presiding Justice)