In a lawsuit seeking revocation of a disposition that meets the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State for various wounds, whether the disposition shall be revoked in whole where some of the differences are recognized as the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and not the remainder of the differences (negative)

In addition to Article 4 (1) 6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, where several differences occur in the process of confirming facts related to the requirements for persons of distinguished service to the State by claiming several differences at the time of application for registration of persons of distinguished service to the State, the examination is conducted to determine whether they meet the requirements for persons of distinguished service to the State. Accordingly, physical examinations are not conducted to determine disability ratings for persons who are not injured or have not been recognized. Furthermore, it is reasonable to view that the applicant who filed an application for registration of persons of distinguished service to the State, alleging several differences, seeks not only to be registered as a person of distinguished service to the State but also to register as a person of distinguished service to the State in education, training, or performance of duty, but also to seek the registration of persons of distinguished service to the State corresponding to the degree of their disability and disability rating. Comprehensively taking account of the fact that in a single administrative disposition of appearance, if there is decentralization or some part of the persons subject to the disposition, it can be revoked.

Article 4(1)6, Article 6(2) and (3), Article 6-3(1) and Article 6-4 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State, Article 9(4), Article 10(1), (3), and Article 14(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State, Article 18 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State

Supreme Court en banc Decision 95Nu8850 delivered on November 16, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3812)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Jisan, Attorneys Kim Jae-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The head of Gwangju Regional Veterans Administration

Gwangju High Court Decision 2010Nu1506 decided March 31, 2011

The part of the judgment of the court below concerning the disposition corresponding to the requirements of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State to the right of the patient shall be reversed, and the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this part shall be revoked, and the corresponding plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed. The remaining appeal shall be dismissed. A half of the total costs of appeal shall be borne by the

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 4 (1) 6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “Act”) refers to that military personnel or police officers wounded or sick in the course of performing their duties (including diseases in official duties), so that there is a proximate causal relation between education and training or in the performance of their duties and their injury and disease (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du6772, Sept. 6, 2007, etc.). Accordingly, where an application for registration of a person of distinguished services to the State is filed in relation to an injury during education and training or in the performance of their duties, the term “written confirmation of facts pertaining to the requirements for persons of distinguished services to the State, etc.” requires that the head of the agency to which they belong state his/her injury and disease so that he/she can examine whether they meet the requirements for persons of distinguished services to the State, the name and disease of wounded in accordance with Article 6 (2) of the Act, and Article 6 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act or the Enforcement Rule of the Act shall be separately determined.

In addition to the contents, form, and legislative intent of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and where several differences occur in the process of confirming the facts related to the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished service to the State by claiming several wounds at the time of application for registration, it shall be examined as to whether each wounds constitutes the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished service to the State. Accordingly, it shall not be conducted in physical examinations to determine disability ratings for persons who are not injured or have not been recognized as the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished service to the State. Furthermore, it shall be reasonable to view that the applicant who filed an application for registration of persons who have rendered distinguished service to the State by asserting several wounds, as to the registration of persons who have rendered distinguished service to the State, is seeking registration as persons who have rendered distinguished service to the State, not just because they are registered as persons who have rendered distinguished service to the State, but also as persons who have the degree of each wounds and degree of disability corresponding to that of persons who have suffered in education and training or in the performance of duty. Even if a single administrative disposition can be partially identified even if they are different, it may be revoked (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 95Nu85Nu850, etc.

With respect to the plaintiff's request for the revocation of the disposition equivalent to the expenses for supporting persons who have rendered distinguished services to the left-hand and the right-hand symptoms, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the recognition of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, on the ground that there is a proximate causal relation with the plaintiff's military education and training or performance of duties. However, the symptoms of the right-hand ear cannot be recognized as proximate causal relation, but the defendant's full revocation of the disposition corresponding to the expenses for supporting persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State. However, in such a case according to the above legal principles, the court below should revoke only the part concerning the symptoms of the left-hand ear out of the defendant's disposition corresponding to the expenses for supporting persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State. Thus

2. Meanwhile, regarding the part on the symptoms of the left-hand ear in the instant disposition that constituted the requirement of persons rendering distinguished services to the State, the petition of appeal and the appellate brief did not indicate the grounds of appeal in the grounds

3. Therefore, of the judgment of the court below, the part on the disposition corresponding to the requirements of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State for the symptoms of the right ear in the judgment below is reversed. Since this part is deemed to be sufficient to be directly decided by this court, the judgment of the court of first instance as to this part is revoked pursuant to Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 437 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding thereto is dismissed. The remaining appeals are dismissed. A half of the total litigation costs are to be borne by the plaintiff, and the remainder is to be borne by the defendant. It is so decided

Justices Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)