The revocation of revocation of the refusal of bereaved family member of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State.

○ ○

The Head of Seoul Regional Veterans Administration

May 12, 2009

June 16, 2009

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on August 11, 2008 against bereaved family members of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A.O was a Vietnam War veteran, who was suffering from defoliants and was determined as a patient suffering from defoliants in around 202, around September 2007, after being recognized as a patient suffering from defoliants by the Defendant’s side as a patient suffering from defoliants, and was registered as a third degree in action and died on September 30, 2007.

B. On March 18, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a report on his change of status as a de facto spouse of the deceased and filed an application for the registration of bereaved family members of a person of distinguished service to the State. On August 11, 2008, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition to the effect that the Plaintiff cannot recognize a de facto marital relationship between the Plaintiff and the deceased, and thus, the Plaintiff was not a de facto spouse who is a bereaved family

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, 3, Eul's Evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since October 197, the Plaintiff and the Deceased actually lived as a couple without reporting marriage for about 10 years from the time when the Deceased died, and thus, the Plaintiff constitutes a de facto spouse under Article 5(1)1 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “Act”), and the disposition of this case was unlawful on a different premise.

B. In fact, (1) the Deceased was killed before and after work, and 2 married children (born on February 2, 1974, and on June 23, 1976) and 1 son (born on February 17, 1979) were killed in the military village, and the Plaintiff was killed with the former husband, and 1 son and son were killed in the Dong-dong, Seoul Metropolitan Government. Around April 1997, the deceased and son did not first come after the first day with her birth. (2) After October 197, the deceased et al. were living together with 3 or son and son of the Plaintiff’s mother in the process of commuting and her mother’s living together with her mother and her mother in the military village. (3) Around 1907, the deceased et al. were living together with her mother and her mother in the process of returning the Plaintiff’s living.

(3) During that period, the Deceased was hospitalized at the hospital on April 2002, and on June 2003, 2003, the Deceased was hospitalized. At that time, the Deceased’s children were in the care of the Deceased. Even after the Deceased was discharged from the hospital on October 2003, the Deceased still lived with the Deceased’s children, and she was in the Plaintiff’s house 1 to 2 times a week, and she was in the Plaintiff’s monthly living expenses.

(4) On April 207, 200, the Deceased was diagnosed as a class of blood dives, around 7, 007 at a veterans hospital, and was hospitalized for a close inspection. During that process, the Plaintiff entered the deceased’s wife’s consent on April 5, 2007. (5) The Deceased was hospitalized at the hospital around 7, 00, and was hospitalized at the hospital around 7, 7,000, and the deceased’s children were removed from the hospital during the period of 7,00,000 after 7,000, and the deceased’s children were removed from the hospital during the period of 7,000,000 after 7,000,000,0000,000 won. (The deceased’s children were removed from the hospital during the period of 0,000,000,000 won.) At that time, the deceased’s children were discharged from the hospital during the period of 7,07.

(8) On September 2007, the Deceased was recognized as suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants No. 3 and registered as a soldier or policeman wounded in action. Under the living status survey table prepared, the Deceased’s family member entered ○○○○○, a woman, and a son’s family member, as the deceased’s family member. (9) The Plaintiff did not request the deceased’s family meeting at the time of the deceased’s recovery in 2002, the family group at the time of the deceased’s recovery on December 2003, 2006 and around 2007, the deceased’s family member, such as not having participated in ○○○, a woman of the deceased’s head of the deceased, and ○○○○○○’s family member who participated in the deceased’s exercise of the deceased’s family in 206 and 207. The Plaintiff requested on September 28, 2007 to receive KRW 10 from the deceased’s own bank and received them from the deceased’s children.

(10) After the death of the deceased, not only three children of the deceased but also three children of the deceased were permanently displayed in his funeral hall. Meanwhile, after the death of the deceased, the children of the deceased demanded the Plaintiff to gather together about the issue of the Plaintiff’s registration of surviving families of persons of distinguished service to the State and to prepare a letter of guarantee necessary therefor. On November 2007, the deceased prepared a letter of guarantee to the effect that the Plaintiff was in de facto marital relationship with the Plaintiff by making his living in the Plaintiff’s home after the first call on April 1997.

[Grounds for recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 4, 6 through 8, 17, 18, 9-1 through 12, Eul evidence 2, 3, 9, 4-1 through 4, Eul evidence 5, and 6-1 through 3, Gap evidence 11, 16-1 through 9, and the whole purport of arguments is to be determined.

Article 5 (1) of the Act provides that a de facto marital relationship includes a de facto spouse who is one of the bereaved family members of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State. The de facto marital relationship is insufficient solely for the reason that the person has a simple marital relationship or a sporadic marital relationship, and there is a substance of a marital life which is subjectively and objectively recognized a marital life in terms of the family order in light of social norms. The deceased living together with the plaintiff at the plaintiff's home and gave his living expenses to the plaintiff. In the course of the hospital treatment of the deceased, the plaintiff has obtained consent necessary for various inspections of the deceased, etc. during the hospital treatment of the deceased, and the plaintiff and his father and wife have reached several exchanges with the deceased's family members before the deceased's birth. However, according to the above recognition facts, according to the above recognition facts, the deceased has been expressed as a resident at the funeral of the deceased and his father's children.

4. Around May 2007, the Plaintiff continued to have a static relationship with the Plaintiff and continued to exist after the establishment of a static relationship with the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s Ma○○○○ and his son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s her son’s son’s son’s son.

Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges ○○○