2013Gudan10590 Revocation of Disposition of Non-existence of Persons of Distinguished Service

ThisA (90)

Attorney Seo-young et al., Counsel for the defendant

Head of Daegu Regional Veterans Administration

Litigation Performers;

June 20, 2014

August 8, 2014

1. On June 11, 2013, the Defendant’s disposition of non-conformity of the requirements for persons eligible for veteran’s compensation against the Plaintiff is revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, 50% is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

The judgment in Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 1 of the same Article and the decision that the defendant's disposition of non-conforming to the requirements of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State against the plaintiff on June 11, 2013 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 5, 2011, the Plaintiff entered the Army and served in the 1107 Military Service Corps lower rank, and was discharged from active service on January 4, 2013.

B. On February 4, 2013, the Plaintiff applied for registration of a person of distinguished service to the Defendant on the ground that the injury or disease in the instant case occurred due to shock training, long-distance driving group, etc. during the military service, such as the knee knee mae mathum mathum, gue fladalumum, external fladalum, and the left-hand fladule flue flusium, etc. (hereinafter “the injury or disease in this case”). Accordingly, on June 11, 2013, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-conformity of the requirements for persons of distinguished service to the State and persons of distinguished service to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant disposition”).

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, the purport of whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the Plaintiff entered a physical form without any particular problem, the Defendant’s disposition that did not recognize the causal relationship with the performance of duties or education and training during the military service of this case was unlawful, even though the instant injury and disease occurred in the field of a shooting training twice during the military service, long-distance continuing military service, and the stable games participating in around August 2012.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) "A soldier or police officer wounded in the course of performing his/her duties or education and training (including diseases in official duties)" under Article 4 (1) 6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State means that a soldier or police officer wounded or ill in the course of performing his/her duties or during education and training. Therefore, in order to be different from the above provision, there is a proximate causal relation between the performance of duties or education and the injury or disease, and the causal relation between the performance of duties and the injury or disease must be proved by the claimant. However, the causal relation does not necessarily have to be proved clearly in medical and natural science, but it is presumed that there is a proximate causal relation between the performance of duties or education and training, and the injury or disease. In addition, the determination of the causal relation should also be made based on the average condition of the soldier's health and the injury or disease as defined in Article 21 (1) 2 of the Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Du13181, Feb.

2) In the instant case, the Plaintiff appears to have sustained burden on both parties while driving a knee vehicle, which is a large vehicle of knee, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged as a result of the Plaintiff’s request for appraisal of the medical records for the head of the Young-nam University Hospital at this Court, the 107 Don, and the witness B’s testimony, and the following facts: (i) the Plaintiff appeared to have been unable to manipulate the knee vehicle in the military service; (ii) the Plaintiff appeared to have been performing knee-free training conducted for 5 days from June 27, 201, and the kne-free training was conducted on the right-hand side of the military hospital; and (iii) the Plaintiff appeared to have been performing kne-free training and the kne-free training at the knee-free military unit, including knee-off training conducted on December 13, 2011.

3) Therefore, there is a proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff’s occurrence of the injury in the instant case and the performance of duties or education and training during the military service. As seen above, the Plaintiff appears to have caused the injury in the instant case by causing knee and shock to both knee in the overall process of work and education and training during the military service. The Plaintiff’s act of maintaining, distributing, transporting, and managing military supplies, such as security, search, clothes, sing, checking, anti-bruing, handling of anti-brut substances, handling of chemical substances, rescue and relief from disasters, etc., as defined in Article 3 [Attachment Table 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, which is a soldier, constitutes a person eligible for veteran’s compensation in the instant case without any specific reason. Therefore, the part of the Plaintiff’s compensation in the instant case constitutes a person eligible for veteran’s compensation in the instant case’s injury.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges Park Jong-young

1) The Plaintiff did not specify in its complaint the determination that the Plaintiff was not eligible for veteran’s compensation, but the Defendant’s disposition against the Plaintiff.

In the form of "a determination that is not equivalent to the requirements for persons eligible for veteran's compensation", the body described two requirements in the form of "a determination that is not equivalent to the requirements for the plaintiff.

In full view of the facts revealed that there was a dispute over the person eligible for veteran's compensation, the subject for revocation of the lawsuit in this case is subject to the disposition above.

It is reasonable to focus on the elements of persons eligible for veteran's compensation.