Plaintiff (Attorney Yoon-han et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

The Commissioner of Busan Regional Veterans Administration

November 6, 2009

Busan District Court Decision 2008Guhap892 Decided February 4, 2009

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the decision of the injury rating rendered to the plaintiff on May 17, 2007.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 3, 5, 6, and Eul evidence 1 to 7:

A. On October 11, 1988, the Plaintiff entered the Army and served in the control of ○○○○ History, and was discharged from the military hospital on September 30, 1989 due to the trade of the lower-class lower-class firearms that occurred during the night shooting training on December 26, 198, the Plaintiff was receiving treatment from the military hospital on the ground that “In the instant case, he was discharged from the military hospital on September 30, 1989.”

B. On April 28, 2000, the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement deliberated and decided on the application for registration of persons of distinguished service to the Defendant on the ground that the Plaintiff suffered from the instant wounds during military service, and on April 28, 200, the Disability Rating Classification Review Committee determined that the Plaintiff’s disability rating was class 7, 807, following the physical examination of the Plaintiff on June 21, 200, and accordingly, the Defendant determined the Plaintiff as a person of distinguished service to the State under class 7, 807 of the Disability Rating.

C. After that, on March 27, 2007, the Plaintiff applied for a physical examination for the reclassification of the instant wound to the Defendant, and on May 10, 2007, the Disability Ratings Classification Review Committee determined the Plaintiff’s disability rating as Class 7 grade 807, as in the previous case, after the reclassification of the Plaintiff. Accordingly, on May 17, 2007, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that there is no change in the disability rating as a result of the reclassification physical examination (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Minister of Patriots and Veterans Affairs on August 9, 2007, but the claim was dismissed on January 11, 2008.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff: (a) The injury of this case constitutes a person who has highly functional disorder due to neute, gnee, impairment of bones, anti-sculation, etc. in the disability rating table under [Attachment Table 3] of Article 14(3) of the 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. 20514, Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree”); (b) the injury of this case constitutes “a person who has highly deflaged, or neute,” or “a person whose disability grade is extremely deflaged,” or “a person whose disability grade is obviously flaged with neute,” under Article 14(3) [Attachment 3] of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State; and (c) a person whose disability grade 6-6(2)30 of the instant case’s employment grade 6(4).

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged by taking into account the following facts: Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3; the result of the commission of physical examination to the head of ○ University Uniform Hospital in the first instance trial; the result of fact inquiry to the head of ○ University Uniform Hospital in the first instance trial and the first instance trial; and the whole purport of the arguments as to the fact inquiry to the head of ○ University Uniform Hospital in the first instance trial.

(i)The circumstances of the operation;

On December 26, 1988, the Plaintiff was sent first to △△ Hospital due to the trade of the left-hand lower-class firearms during the night shooting training, and received the adjacent tystrosis, scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopics

Doshed Doz.’’’’’’’’s opinion on the Doz.’s △△ Hospital’s Doz.

In the left-hand side, there is a non-bruptal damage of the heart and the bruptism of the bruptism. The left-hand brupt damage is doubtful, and this brupt is mainly responsible for the brush of the bruptism and the bruptism of the upper part of the brupt.

ally, Non-Party 1’s opinion on July 23, 2007 by the doctor of △△ Hospital

(1) Sick name: The left-hand Bridges and cardio-cerebral marins, the left-hand Hashes, and the official trade

② The extent of restriction on sports: according to the Plaintiff’s climatic method of measuring the climatic angle of the exercise hall of the Plaintiff, a total of 83 degrees (based on 0, 45, 18, 20, 110 degrees inside). According to the active method of measurement, a total of 70 degrees (based on 15, 20 degrees inside and outside, 40 degrees -5, 40, 40, 15, 20 degrees inside and outside).

x ○ University Uniform Hospital and Medical Doctor Non-party 2

(1) The response of June 12, 2008 to the request for physical appraisal by the court of the first instance.

Of the instant wounds, the Plaintiff’s physical function under the influence of maintaining the left-hand satisfaction level of the Plaintiff’s 80 degrees (based on 0, 30, 30, 30, 30, 20, 110 degrees) and 7 and 807 of the disability rating “a person who has a disability in the face of the face,” among the instant wounds, constitutes “a person who has a disability in the face of the face,” and the degree of disability of “a person who has a disability in the face of the face, salute, salute of the heart, salute of the heart, salute, and salute of the face,” the degree of disability of “a person who has been partially restricted in employment due to the disorder of the 6th degree 44 degrees of the personality rating.” In full view of the foregoing, the Plaintiff constitutes a person who has a disability in the face of the face of the face, a person who has been damaged due to an injury to the face, or major injury.

(2) The reply made on September 18, 2008 by the court of first instance to the inquiry of the fact by the court.

The level of the spawn's spawn's spawn's spawn's pawn's pawn's pawn's pawn's pawn's pawn'.

(3) The reply made on December 26, 2008 by the court of first instance to the fact inquiry by the court.

The left-hand Bridges and cardio-bruptal mas of the plaintiff's total engine trade constitutes a negoti, which is considered to fall under class 6, class 2, class 44 of the disability rating.

(4) The reply made on July 29, 2009 to the inquiry of the fact by the court of the trial court.

The plaintiff is considered to be able to be accompanied by continuous Easternism, neighboring spawnism, and malutism due to the disorder of the neurotic system, while the ability to work remains to some extent, it is difficult to say that the types of work on a bridge, the types of work on a bridge are difficult.

(v) the inquiry reply to the head of the △ Veterans Hospital (out of prison and non-party 3) by the court of first instance to inquire into the fact;

The plaintiff remains in the common sense of the part 1/3 of the left her/3 of the front her retirement, and the annual installments damage, etc. resulting therefrom are remaining due to a merger certificate and a testamentary gift after treatment, and due to the restriction of the family-saving movement and the damage of the malimatical pathy, etc. of some parts due to the damage to the malial pathy, etc. of the maline, etc.

In the light of the symptoms mentioned above, namely, the abnormal sense of tolerances, etc., the restriction on the exercise of satisfaction can be applied to the degree of disability, but it is judged that the degree of disability of the satisfaction does not correspond to meaningful opinion of disability (the degree of application to the degree of disability).

A human body body body is composed of a combination of skins, annual installments, blood transfusions, bones, bones, verts, etc., so it is reasonable to judge the degree of disability by comprehensively taking account of symptoms, functions, etc. revealed by the comprehensive role of these components, etc. The results of the Plaintiff’s bodily assessment of ○ University Uniform Hospital, which is subject to Paragraph 6(2)44 of Article 6, are unreasonable application.

D. Determination

(i) Whether it falls under section 6(1)36, section 6(1)116, or section 6(2)30.

Of the disability rating table in Article 14(3) [Attachment 3] of the Enforcement Decree, Grade 6-1(3)36 of the Enforcement Decree provides that “A person who has a high level of functional disorder due to Mae-Mae-Mae-Mae-Mae-Mae-Mae-Mae-Mae-Mae-Mae-Mae-Mae-Mae-Mae-Mae-Mae-Mae-Mae-Mae-Man-Mae-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Ma116” and 6-6-6

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

D. Whether it falls under Section 6(2)(53)

According to Article 8-3 [Attachment 3] of the 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. 848 of Jun. 20, 2007; hereinafter the "Enforcement Rule"), 10. Before determining disability ratings by physical parts of Article 8-3 [Attachment 3] of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State, in order to fall under Article 14(3) [Attachment 3] of the Enforcement Decree, 6.2. or more physical parts among the three major sections of Section 6.2.53 of the disability rating table shall be limited to 1/2 or more of the physical parts of Section 3 of the Decree, and the physical parts of Section 1 of the plaintiff's salvable area for the salving pipes by at least 83 degrees and at least 70 roads 1/2.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

Article 6(1)(12), and Article 6(2)(44)

1. Parties’ assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that the instant disability falls under Article 8-3 [Attachment Table 3] of the Enforcement Rule, which set the detailed criteria for the method of determining physical disability upon delegation by the Enforcement Decree, among the determination of the disability ratings by physical parts of the 6th grade 122 and 6th grade 2 of the 6th grade 4 among the determination of the disability ratings by physical parts of the 6th grade 3th grade 4th grade 5th grade 5th grade 6th grade 122 and 6th grade 44 of the 6th grade 6th grade 6th grade 5th grade 5th grade 5th grade of the Enforcement Rule for the 6th grade 3th grade 6th grade 3th grade of the 6th grade 6th grade 6th grade 12 and the 6th grade 2nd 44

(2) Judgment

With regard to whether disability ratings stipulated in "A., disability ratings" in "A., disability ratings" in Article 8-3 [Attachment Table 3] of the Enforcement Rule for the Physical Disability Ratings of May 1, 200, are applicable to the determination of disability ratings by physical parts of the Bridges, referring to the physical parts of the B., referring to the physical parts of the B., referring to the physical parts of the B., referring to the physical parts of the B., referring to the physical parts of the B., referring to the physical parts of the B., referring to the physical parts of the B., referring to the physical parts of the B., referring to the parts of the B., referring to the parts of the B., referring to the parts of the B., referring to the parts of the B., referring to the parts of the B., referring to the parts of the B., excluding the parts of the B., referring to the parts of the B., referring to the parts of the B., 3, excluding the parts of the 3.

Therefore, the plaintiff's different parts of the plaintiff's disability cannot be deemed to fall under Article 8-3 [Attachment 3] of the Enforcement Rule 8-3 [Attachment Table 3] of the 6th grade 122 and 6th grade 2 Item 44 of the 6th grade 6th grade 12 of the 6th grade 12 and 6th grade 4 of the 6th grade 6th grade 5th grade 3 of the 8-3 [Attachment 3] of the 8-3 [Attachment 3] of the 8th grade 5th grade of the 6th grade

③ The Plaintiff also asserts that the scope of occupation eligible for employment has been considerably limited after the surgery due to the instant injury, and therefore, the scope of occupation eligible for employment has been considerably limited after the instant injury occurred due to the occurrence of a trouble in the neurosis, thereby falling under class 6 pursuant to Article 8-3 [Attachment 3] 5 (e) (1) of the Enforcement Rule.

According to the results of physical examination of the head of ○ University Uniform Hospital in the first instance trial, and the results of fact-finding on the head of ○ University Uniform Hospital in the first instance and the first instance trial, the Plaintiff still remains to a certain degree of labor ability, but the types of work to work in the same way and on the bridge using continuous dynamics due to the occurrence of a chronic disorder. However, Article 8-3 [Attachment 3] of the Enforcement Rule of Article 8-3(5)(e)(1) of the Enforcement Rule provides that “Although there remains labor ability in the case of cerebral and vertebalism due to the external wound or other causes, a person whose occupational ability to work remains to a considerable extent due to the same way remains to be recognized as Grade 6.” Thus, in interpreting the language of the above provision, it is reasonable to determine that this can only be applied to the case of psychotropic pains due to the injury of brain and vertebale,” or in accordance with Article 8-3(5) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Table.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

· Sub-committee theory

Ultimately, the instant disposition is lawful on the ground that the Plaintiff’s disability rating falls under class 7, class 807, as in the previous case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit. However, since the judgment of the court of first instance is just with this conclusion, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yoon Jin-tae (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice)