beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the pertinent part of the judgment of the court of first instance is amended as stated in the following 2; and (b) the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (including “related Acts and subordinate statutes,” but excluding the part on “4. conclusion”) is the same as the part on the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, except to supplement or add the judgment as stated in the following 3. Thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with
2. On the two pages below the modified part, the phrase “A evidence 1 and B 1” shall be deemed to read “A evidence 1 and B 1 (including the branch numbers if they have the number)”.
8 The following shall be added between 2-3 below:
【A male who remains with an obvious chest in appearance” even before the enforcement date of the amended Enforcement Decree shall be included in the payment of accident compensation benefits under Article 31(1) of the former Military Pension Act (Amended by Act No. 11632, Mar. 22, 2013); and the same shall apply to the former Act on the Honorable Treatment, etc. of Persons of Distinguished Services to the State (Amended by Act No. 5120, Dec. 29, 1995);
Article 4 subparag. 6 and Article 12 of this Act and attached Table 14(3)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act claim that the situation where a soldier or policeman was protected as a soldier or policeman wounded on duty pursuant to the Military Pension Act. However, a wounded veterans’ pension prescribed by the Decree on the Honorable Treatment, etc. of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State differs in both the purpose, character, requirements for payment, timing and amount of payment, etc. of the relevant benefits. As such, the mere fact that a separate amount of compensation prescribed by these Acts and subordinate statutes has been paid to a male who remains after a baby who is obvious in the baby’s appearance, the subject provision of this case excludes a male who remains after a baby who is obvious in the baby’s appearance from the recipient of a wounded veterans’ pension.