In a case where Gap applied for recognition of deceased and wounded noble person Eul for recognition of the Minister of Health and Welfare on the ground that "the deceased and wounded noble person who had been killed and wounded in the sea water (class III) in the south beach," but the Minister of Health and Welfare made a disposition not to grant recognition on the ground that "the occurrence of harm caused by his/her own act" under Article 3 (2) 1 of the Act on Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons killed and wounded in the Public Health and Welfare, the case holding that Eul's disposition is unlawful on the ground that "the act, other than his/her duty, is "the case where Eul was killed in the course of rescue another person's life or body in the imminent peril at the bathing beach at risk of his/her life and bodily harm while enjoying water play at the bathing beach," and it does not constitute a person excluded from the application of Article 3 (2) 1 of the Act on Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons killed and wounded in the Public Health and Welfare."

A filed an application for recognition of a deceased or wounded noble person with the Minister of Health and Welfare for recognition of a deceased or wounded noble person with respect to the Minister of Health and Welfare on the ground that “A, in South and North Korea, rescued a friendship disease (class 3 of physical disability) in the sea inside the breakwater of a bathing beach,” but the Minister of Health and Welfare, following the review and resolution by the committee for deliberation on the deceased or wounded noble person, issued a disposition for non-recognition of a deceased or wounded noble person on the ground of “a person’s occurrence of danger due to one’s own act” under Article 3(

Comprehensively taking account of the various circumstances, it is reasonable to view that Eul, who had been in a remote place, was killed or wounded for public interest, to have been deprived of his/her body without success in the rescue, in order to hear Byung's request for rescue and to rescue him/her, and that he/she did not have any contractual duty to relieve the other party faced with danger. Thus, Eul's act is "in cases where he/she was killed or wounded for public interest while playing water at a beach at the risk of danger to his/her own life and body, and was killed or wounded for public interest," and it is reasonable to consider that Eul's act did not actively interfere with the drinking of public interest on the ground that it is difficult to see that he/she did not actively interfere with the drinking of public interest on the ground that it is difficult to see that he/she did not actively interfere with the drinking of public interest on the ground that he/she did not have any urgent reason to see that he/she did not have any capacity to see that he/she did not actively engage in the drinking of public interest on the ground that he/she did not have any emergency.

Article 2 subparagraph 1 of Article 2, Article 3 (1) 6, and Article 3 (2) 1 of the Act on Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service for the Disabled

Plaintiff (Law Firm Han, Attorney Ahn Byung-hee et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

The Minister of Health and Welfare

May 7, 2020

1. The disposition that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on June 25, 2019 revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 11, 2018, the Plaintiff, as Nonparty 1’s spouse, filed an application for recognition of deceased and wounded noble person with Nonparty 1 (hereinafter “the deceased”), on April 4, 2019, on the ground that “Around 14:25, Nonparty 1 (date of birth omitted) was able to rescue a native Nonparty 2, who was leaving seawater on the sea inside the ○○ ○○ Bathing beach ( Address omitted) breakwater, and was able to recover from the sea inside the breakwater.”

B. On June 25, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition of non-recognition of deceased and wounded noble person’s intention (hereinafter “instant disposition”) under Article 3(2)1 of the Act on Honorable Treatment of and Support for Persons Who Died and wounded for the Deceased and wounded for the reason of “a dangerous situation caused by one’s own act” (hereinafter “the Act”). Meanwhile, according to the evidence No. 4, Article 3(2) of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of and Support for Persons who Died and wounded for the Deceased and wounded for the reason of non-recognition is stipulated in Article 3(2) of the Act, but the Plaintiff was notified by the head of Yangcheon-gu around July 1, 2019.

C. On February 26, 2019, the Government issued a national recommendation award to the deceased on the ground that “the deceased was killed in rescueing fluor in the sea as he/she was unable to leave the water in the water at the physically handicapped-friendly Gu during water play,” following the National Recommendation Review Committee.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 8 (including virtual number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

As the Deceased died while drinking sea water and drinking water in the sea, he was killed in action of rescue from the physically handicapped-dong non-party 2, the deceased met the requirements for recognition of a deceased person under the Act on the Persons of Distinguished Service for the Deceased and wounded for the Deceased. In addition, Nonparty 2’s occurrence of a situation while playing water cannot be deemed as the deceased’s own act, and the deceased’s acquisition of drinking water in the state of drinking water does not constitute “the deceased’s death as a direct cause by his own gross negligence.” Therefore, even though the deceased is recognized as a doctor, the instant disposition taken on a different premise should be revoked.

B. Relevant statutes

[Attachment] The “relevant Acts and subordinate statutes” is indicated.

C. Determination

In light of the following circumstances, the evidence mentioned above, Gap evidence Nos. 5, 6, 7, and Eul evidence Nos. 2 and the purport of the entire pleadings as a whole, the deceased’s “in a case where a person was killed while performing water play, etc. at a bathing beach at risk of his/her own life and physical harm and was killed in an imminent danger,” which satisfies the requirements for rescue activities under Articles 2 subparag. 1 and 3(1)6 of the Act on the Persons who Died and Lost for Public Good, and does not constitute a person excluded from the application of the Act under Article 3(2) subparag. 1 of the same Act. Therefore, it is reasonable to recognize the deceased as a deceased’s deceased’s person. Accordingly, the disposition of this case different from the premise is unlawful, and the plaintiff’s assertion pointing this out has merit.

1) Whether to recognize salvage activities

A) Relevant legal principles, etc.

Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Act on the Persons Wounded or wounded for Public Good provides that “The term “rescue” means direct and affirmative acts to rescue another person’s life, body, or property in imminent peril at the risk of one’s own life or body.” Article 3(1) provides that “this Act shall apply when it falls under any of the following subparagraphs.” Article 2 subparag. 6 provides that “when a person is killed or wounded while performing water play at a beach, river, valley, or any other place and is killed or wounded while saving another person’s life or body in danger.” In order to be recognized as a “person killed or wounded for public interest” under the Act on the Persons Wounded or wounded for Public Good, other than his/her duties, acts other than those of the deceased or wounded for relief, should be deemed as acts of the person killed or wounded for the purpose of rescue and relief from danger to the life, body, or property of another person at the time of his/her death, and thus, the act should be deemed as acts of rescue and relief from danger and injury to his/her family members or his/her family members.”

B) Facts of recognition

(1) Activities, etc. of Skinscoo Association

(A) The Deceased, as a Kameras belonging to the MBC, was a workplace club fee and Gangwon-do Gowon-gun's Goscoo club's activities, for the activities of the KBC, and became a member of the KBC, and the Deceased was accompanied by the Deceased's invitation, and the Deceased was able to be accompanied by the non-party 2, who was 2 meters in depth at the sea.

(B) The Deceased had a well-being by doing so, such as skin scoodying, and the friendly Nonparty 2 was a physical disability of the left part of the scood scood scood scood scood scood scood scood scood scood scood scood.

(2) Form of the accident scene

The features of the coast around the accident site are as follows:

A person shall be appointed.

(3) Summary of Nonparty 2’s statement to investigation agencies

The non-party 2 made a statement on the deceased's death in the police station as follows. In other words, the deceased was removed from 10:0 a.m. to 11:0 p.m., after she moved his/her breakwater to 20 minutes, he/she was able to remove water and she again she was able to rest under the direction of the President of the Seaside. From 11:0 p.m. to 30 minutes a.m., he/she purchased her cand, water, and she again she was able to use his/her equipment on the sea, and then she again she was able to use his/her equipment on the part of the deceased, so he/she again to remove the breakwater at the direction of his/her heart. The she again she was able to use his/her equipment on the part of the deceased, and then she was able to use it again on the part of the breakwater.

(4) Summary of Nonparty 3’s statement to investigation agencies

In other words, at the time of finding the deceased and the non-party 2, the △△△△△△△△△ operator, who found the deceased and the non-party 2, made a statement in the following circumstances at the time of finding the police investigation. In other words, at the time of finding the deceased and the non-party 2, the two persons were at least 2-3 meters away from the wharf of the breakwater, and they were dead. The two persons were not dead, but they were dead, but they were dead, but they did not come back. At the same time, they did not come up with the wind. During the process, two persons did not have awareness at the same time until they were rescued into the breakwater, and did not look back to the breakwater, and did not look at the wharf, and did not look back to the breakwater, and made a statement in the non-party 4, the non-party 5, and the non-party 6 in the investigation agency for water-related leisure activities.

(5) Closure of internal investigation

As a result of comprehensively taking into account the statements of the witness and the CCTV images of the CCTV installed at a nearby Army, the police officer in charge of the regional maritime police station presented his opinion on the case of the deceased to the effect that “the deceased, while being flown on the sea inside the ○○ breakwater, is presumed to have been accompanied by Non-party 2 during the process of saving and saving them, shall be presumed to have died, and no other suspicion of crime shall be found.” The prosecutor in charge of the Seocho branch office of the Chuncheon District Public Prosecutor’s Office, who belongs to the Chuncheon District Public Prosecutor’s Office, also directed the investigation upon completion of internal investigation.

C) Specific determination

Comprehensively taking account of the relationship between the deceased and the non-party 2, the background leading up to the two persons’ slicking and sea swimming, the deceased’s inferred act at the time of Non-party 2’s request for rescue, and the credibility of the witness’s statements, etc., it is reasonable to view that the deceased who was located in a place far away from the non-party 2’s request for rescue and rescue operations on the sea and went away without success in rescue operations. The Defendant cannot be deemed to have a fundamental duty of care to relieve the other party in danger solely on the ground that he/she went together with friendship or friendor. As such, the deceased cannot be deemed to have committed an act other than his/her duties, and thus, he/she cannot be deemed to have been aware of the same facts or body of another person at his/her bathing beach, and thus, he/she cannot be deemed to have committed an additional act in accordance with Article 2 subparag. 1 and No. 3(1)6 of the Act on the Persons of Distinguished and Civil Aviation as well as the basic grounds for the instant act.

2) Whether a person is excluded from the application of Article 3(2)1 of the Act on the Honorable Persons of Distinguished or Deceased for Public Good

A) Relevant legal principles, etc.

Article 3(2) of the Act on the Honorable Persons of Distinguished or wounded for a Death or wounded person shall not apply to a person who falls under any of the following subparagraphs, notwithstanding paragraph (1). Article 3(1)1 of the Act provides that “A person who was killed or wounded while performing rescue operations for a person in danger or injury due to his/her own act,” and Article 3(2)2 provides that “a person who was killed or wounded due to his/her gross negligence, which is not related to rescue operations or acts closely related thereto, shall be directly caused by his/her own act and who was killed or wounded.” The purport of Article 3(2) of the Act is to provide for reasonable criteria to determine whether a person killed or wounded for a death or wounded person by giving honorable treatment and support to the deceased or his/her bereaved family members or his/her family members, in light of the legislative purpose of the Act on the Honorable Persons of Distinguished or wounded for a Death and to contribute to social justice, if the relevant rescue activities are insufficient to serve as a social model, in light of the language and purport and structure of the relevant statutes, and where the death or bodily harm occurs.

B) Specific determination

(1) Although Nonparty 2 had inconvenience on the part of Nonparty 2 at the time of the accident, Nonparty 2 was unable to use the body of Nonparty 2 at the time of the accident so that it could be repeated at a distance of 50 to 60 meters on the part of the deceased on the day of the accident. Nonparty 2 was unable to use the body of Nonparty 2 on the part of Nonparty 2 at the time of the accident so that it could not be seen that Nonparty 2 was unable to use the body of the deceased on the part of Nonparty 2 on the part of Nonparty 2, who was unable to use the body of Nonparty 2 on the part of Nonparty 2 on the part of Nonparty 2 on the part of Nonparty 2 on the part of Nonparty 2 on the part of Nonparty 2 on the part of Nonparty 2 on the part of Nonparty 2 on the part of Nonparty 2 on the part of Nonparty 2 on the part of Nonparty 2 on the part of Nonparty 2 on the part of Nonparty 2 on the part of Nonparty 2 on the part of Nonparty 2 on the part of the deceased’s body.

(2) In light of the above various circumstances, the deceased cannot be deemed to be “a person who caused harm to others,” which is a reason for exclusion from the deceased and wounded noble person under Article 3(2)1 of the deceased and wounded noble person Act, and otherwise, the defendant’s assertion to the effect that a situation was caused to Nonparty 2 due to the deceased’s act is without merit.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted for the reasons and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment] Relevant Statutes: omitted

Judges Park Jong-yang (Presiding Judge)