[1] The purport of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State and the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation prescribed by the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State by dividing them into persons who have rendered distinguished service to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation, and whether the performance of duties or education and training that caused wounds must be directly related to national

[2] Whether it is compatible with a person who has rendered distinguished service to the State for the reason that he/she falls under the requirements for a person who has rendered distinguished service to the State or a person eligible for veteran’s compensation to claim revocation of a non-person who has rendered distinguished service to the State (negative), and whether a claim for revocation of a two disposition is in a primary and preliminary relationship that mainly claims revocation

[1] Article 4 (1) 6 and (2) of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State; Article 3 [Attachment 1] 2-1 (a), 2-2, and 2-8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State; Article 2 (1) 2 and (2) of the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation; Article 2 [Attachment 1] subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Support for Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State / [2] Articles 4 and 6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 2015Du4694 Decided July 27, 2016 (Gong2015Ha, 1263)

Plaintiff

Head of the Gyeong-nam Veterans Branch Office

Busan High Court Decision 2014Nu11918 decided July 1, 2015

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

1. Determination on the grounds of appeal on the part concerning the claim for revocation of a disposition that rendered distinguished service to the State

A. Unlike the former Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (amended by Act No. 11041, Sept. 15, 201), Article 4(1)6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc.”) provides that “A soldier, police officer, or fire-fighting official who discharged from military service or retired from education and training (including diseases) directly related to national defense, security, or the protection of people’s lives and property and thus, a soldier or police officer who was determined a disability rating in the physical examination conducted by the Minister of Patriots and Veterans Affairs shall be deemed as a soldier or police officer who was one of the persons who rendered distinguished services to the State, and thus, the nature of the performance or education and training shall be directly related to national defense and security, or to the protection of people’s lives and property.” On the contrary, the Act constitutes a person eligible for veteran’s compensation under Article 2(1)2)2 of the Act.

Meanwhile, Article 4(2) of the Act on the Persons of Distinguished Services to the State and Article 2(2) of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of and Support for Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State delegate to Presidential Decree the detailed criteria and scope of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation. Article 3 [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of and Support for Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “Attachment 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act”) and Article 2 [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation

Specifically, comprehensively taking account of the health team, subparagraphs 2-1 (a), 2-2, and 2-8 of attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State, ① an accident or disaster that occurred directly due to the conduct of duties (including preparation or rearrangement activities directly related thereto, moving to a destination for the performance of duties or moving to a military unit after the completion of their duties), ② an accident or disaster that occurred directly due to the treatment of dangerous substances, such as chemical weapons (WMD) and narcotics, and the maintenance, distribution, transportation, and management of munitions, such as equipment, goods, etc., and marine illegal acts, military investigation and judgment against a crime, military investigation and judgment, inspection activities, accident, maritime investigation and judgment, accident, accident investigation, sea wave, chemical substance, and accident relief, etc., and other similar activities, which have occurred directly or medically due to the occurrence of an accident or accident caused by the occurrence of an injury or disease directly or medically recognized causes for the performance of duties,

On the other hand, subparagraph 1 of attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Veterans and Compensation for Persons who have been killed or wounded due to an accident or disaster during the performance of duties (including the movement of persons to their destination for preparation, adjustment and performance of duties) other than the performance of duties under subparagraph 2-1 through 2-8 of attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State as persons eligible for veteran's compensation.

As such, the purport of classifying persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran's compensation lies in enhancing the identity of veterans by classifying them as persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State, and by simply classifying them as persons eligible for veteran's compensation, providing proper honorable treatment, support, and compensation (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Du46994, Jul. 27, 2016).

Therefore, in order to constitute a soldier or policeman wounded on duty under Article 4(1)6 of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State, the performance of duties or education and training that caused the injury must be directly related to the national defense, security, or the protection of the lives and property of the people. On the contrary, a person discharged from military service by suffering from wounds in the performance of duties or education and training not directly related to national defense, security, or the protection of the lives and property of the people can be deemed as a soldier or policeman wounded on duty under Article 2(1)2 of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State,

B. On April 2, 2012, the Plaintiff entered the Air Force, but was discharged from military service on April 5, 2013 on the grounds of war or official wound, and on July 16, 2013, the lower court acknowledged that the Defendant rendered an application for registration of persons of distinguished services to the State on July 16, 2013, stating that “The Plaintiff did not constitute the aforementioned requirements for persons of distinguished services to the State (hereinafter referred to as “instant persons of distinguished services”) on the grounds that there was no causal link between the Gun and the Plaintiff on July 24, 2012 when performing military service on September 2012, and around December 2012, 2012, while performing internal training for the preparation of the Military Veterans Association.”

Furthermore, in full view of the circumstances as indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that the instant case’s disposition was unlawful on a different premise, on the following grounds: (a) it is reasonable to deem that the instant wound was caused by education and training performed by the Plaintiff while serving in the military, or by external or external stimulation; and (b) even if there was a stimulation in the Plaintiff, the disease was rapidly aggravated above the natural progress speed due to training or over

C. However, in light of the above legal principles, it is difficult to accept such judgment of the court below.

According to the records, the disposition of this case is stated as follows: "It is difficult to recognize that there is no causal relationship with the performance of official duties on the ground of the same ground as that of your injury, and it is determined that the person was not eligible for the application of Article 4 (1) 6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State and Article 2 (1) 2 of the Act on the Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran's Compensation." The attached document "written reasons corresponding to the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished service to the State and persons eligible for veteran's compensation." The attached document is called as "1.", "2. related data", and "3. Comprehensive determination of April."

Ultimately, the instant disposition grounds are as follows: (a) it is difficult to recognize the instant difference arising from the “preparation of a stable competition or a Gun sports conference” alleged by the Plaintiff as a wound suffered in the performance of duties or education and training directly related to national defense, security, or the protection of people’s lives and property; and (b) it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relationship between the “preparation of a stable competition or a Gun sports conference” as alleged by the Plaintiff and the instant difference; and (c) the instant disposition on the grounds therefor is divided into the “disposition of non-existence of the State to the State” and the “Disposition

Therefore, in light of the aforementioned provisions and legal principles, even if the instant wound was caused by the Plaintiff’s “preparation of a stable competition or a military contest,” the instant disposition only becomes unlawful. In order for the instant disposition to be unlawful, the instant wound due to the “preparation of a stable competition or a military contest,” which is directly related to national defense and security, or to the protection of the people’s lives and property, constitutes a disease or a disease caused by the injury or education and training. In light of the provisions of attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State, the “preparation of a stable competition or a military contest” cannot be deemed as a performance of duties or education and training directly related to national defense and security or the protection of the people’s lives and property.

D. Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the instant disposition was unlawful even on the ground that it can be inferred that the instant wound occurred due to the Plaintiff’s external injury or external injury caused by education and training, performance of duties, or duties performed while serving in the military, or education and training, or education and training, etc., which are directly related to national defense and security or the protection of people’s lives and property. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished services to the State, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation in the grounds of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

2. Ex officio determination as to a claim for revocation of a disposition for revocation of a person eligible for veteran's compensation;

A. The lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, revoked both dispositions on the instant lawsuit, claiming revocation of a disposition that rendered distinguished service to the State and a claim seeking revocation of a disposition that rendered distinguished service to the State in the form of simple combination, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.

B. However, the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State and the Act on Veterans and Veterans Compensation, based on the nature of the education and training or the performance of duty or education and training directly related to national defense or security, or to the protection of the lives and property of the people, were classified into persons of distinguished service to the State, persons killed or wounded in the performance of duty or education and training not directly related to national defense or security, or to the protection of the lives and property of the people, and their application and registration procedures were

As such, the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State and the Act on Veterans’ Compensation are divided into persons who have rendered distinguished service to the State, depending on whether the performance of duties or education and training, which mainly caused death or injury, is directly related to the national defense, security, or the protection of people’s lives and property. Therefore, a claim for revocation of a disposition rendered in favor of persons who have rendered distinguished service to the State and a disposition made in favor of persons who have rendered distinguished service to the State on the ground that they meet the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished service to the State and a disposition made in favor of persons who have rendered distinguished service to the State on the ground that they

C. Whether the form of consolidation is a simple consolidation or a primary and preliminary consolidation is determined on the basis of the nature of the request for consolidation rather than the intention of the party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da96868, May 29, 2014). Thus, even if the Plaintiff claims two claims in a primary and preliminary relationship as a simple consolidation, the lower court should have determined such claims in the order of their primary and preliminary claims.

Nevertheless, the lower court deemed the combination of the instant cases as simple combination, and accepted both incompatible claims. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the nature of a claim for revocation of a non-specific disposition rendered by a person of distinguished service to the State and a combination of claims for revocation of a non-specific disposition rendered by a person of distinguished service to the State, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. As seen earlier, as long as the grounds of appeal on the claim for revocation of a non-specific disposition rendered by a person of distinguished service to the State are reversed on the grounds of this part of the grounds of appeal

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Kim Chang-suk (Presiding Justice)