[1] Whether the application of Article 8-3 [Attachment 3] Paragraph (5) Item (a) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State may be excluded solely on the ground that the disability was not caused on the part of the Presidential Decree on the part of the State in determining the disability

[2] Whether Article 8-3 [Attachment 3] Paragraph (5) Item (e) Item (1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State may be applied to the case of Malisis caused by damage to Malisis (affirmative)

[1] Among the disabilities belonging to Article 8-3 [Attachment Table 3](5)(a) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 720 of Jan. 15, 201), those who have dynamics and other psychosissis with residuess as major residues (Grade 6(2)44), “persons whose dynamics and psychosissis continue to exist due to livers, such as chronves or livers,” “persons who can not be seen as having a clear basis for the application of the above-mentioned provision on 4th degree of injury due to their whole or nephalopical disease” (Article 7 subparag. 401) and “persons who have no obvious reasons for the application of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State” (Article 5 subparag. 21) and “persons who have an obvious convenition and neary disease” (Article 6(12).12).

[2] Machopathy is composed of cerebral and mathy, and thus, the literal meaning of Madithy and vertebalism in Article 8-3 [Attachment Table 3](5)(e)(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 720 of Jan. 15, 201) does not exclude Machopath, but refers to Malithy in itself, and the Malithy is classified into Malithy function and math function. Since Mamothy is classified into Malithy function and pathy function, it is reasonable to interpret Malithy as a different provision according to the degree of loss of Malithy ability in case of Malithy caused by Malithal damage.

[1] Article 14 [Attachment 3] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16876 of Jun. 27, 2000), Article 8-3 [Attachment 3] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (amended by Ordinance No. 720 of Jan. 15, 2001) / [2] Article 14 [Attachment 3] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16876 of Jun. 27, 200), Article 8-3 [Attachment 3] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State

Plaintiff

The Commissioner of Busan Regional Veterans Administration

Busan High Court Decision 2009Nu1495 decided Nov. 27, 2009

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s physical disability grades 4 and 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Act on the Honorable Treatment of and Support for Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16876 of Jun. 27, 200) was seriously affected by the instant accident, such as matrine 2, Matrine 4 and 6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of and Support for Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16876 of Jan. 15, 201), and that the Plaintiff’s physical disability ratings 5 and 7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of and Support for Persons of Distinguished Service to the State (amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 720 of Jan. 15, 201) were not applicable to the Plaintiff’s physical disability ratings 5 and 7 of the same Act.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

In light of the records, the judgment of the court below that there is a lack of evidence to find that the plaintiff's wound falls under class 6 (2) 30 is justifiable.

The purport of this part of the grounds of appeal is that the court below, which is a fact-finding court, erred in selecting evidence or finding facts that belong to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court below, and thus does not constitute legitimate grounds

3. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. Paragraph (5) of Article 8-3 [Attachment Table 3] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provides that “an impediment to the function or mental function of a new psychotropic system” shall be classified as “the content of a serious psychotropic disability,” “the degree of a serious psychotropic disability,” “the degree of a serious psychotropic disorder,” “malutism, f, etc., e., e., f., e., ne., ne., ne., ne., ne., ne., e., ne., ne., e., ne., ne., e., ne., e., ne., e., e., ne., e., ne., e., ne., e., ne., e., ne., e., ne., e., ne., e., ne., e., ne., e., ne., ne.

However, from among the disabilities belonging to Article 8-3 [Attachment Table 3] 5 (a) of the Enforcement Rule, "persons with dynamics and other ney disorders with major residuess (Class 6 (2) 4)," "persons with chronological disorders and nephism continued to exist due to nephan or chronological residuess such as chronium or chronchis, etc." (Class 7 (401)), "persons with nephalopical disorders and nephism in whole or in part with nephalopyism" (Class 5 (21), "persons with nephalopism and nephalopism in their part with nephalopological and nephalopical disorder" (Article 6 (1) 122), "persons with nephalopical disorder and nephalopical disorder" (Article 6 (2) 4) of the Enforcement Rule shall not be interpreted to mean that there is no clear basis for the treatment of nephalopicalism in their part or its whole nealopicalism.

According to the records, the plaintiff's different opinion is that "the degree of disorder caused by the disorder is not meaningful to the extent that it is applicable to the disability rating," if there is a medical opinion that "the degree of disorder caused by the disorder of the pathal system is likely to be accompanied by the mathalism and pathalism," although it is not clear whether the mathalism and the mathalism damage caused by the disorder of the mathalism caused by the disorder of the mathal system is the mathalism and the mathalism damage of the mathal system."

If so, the court below should have deliberated more on the degree of the plaintiff's wounds, and should have determined whether the person with dynamics and other psychotropic disorders with the major residues (Article 6-2-4) or the person with neutism and neutism with the neutrony or neutism (Article 6-3 [Attachment 3] 5-5 (a)] of the Enforcement Rule, as alleged by the plaintiff, falls under the category of "persons with neutrony or other neutrony disorder with the neutrony with the neutrony or neutrony disease" (Article 6-6-2-4) or "persons with neutrony or neutron

The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

B. Article 8-3 [Attachment 3](5)(1)(e) of the Enforcement Rule provides that “In the case of negorisomes due to cerebral and vertebralism and other causes, a person who has access to the same degree to the extent that it always impedes work other than easy labor in the case of negorisomes due to emulsion or other causes shall be recognized as class 5, and a person who has a limited amount of work that can be employed due to the same emulsion shall be recognized as class 6, and a person who has access to the same degree of work having labor ability shall be recognized as class 7.”

The court below determined that the above provision cannot be applied on the ground that it is reasonable to view that the above provision can only be applied to the case of negorithy caused by the external injury of “cerebral and vertebralism”, or by other causes such as “cerebral and vertebralism” in grammatic interpretation.

However, we cannot accept the above judgment of the court below in the following respects.

A new boundary is classified into an autopsyologically, i.e., e., e. e. e. thmathal boundary (cerebral and e.g.) and mathal boundary, and 12 brain and e.g., two mouths arising from cerebral and e.g., two mouths through two mouths, and 31 p.m. projected through e.g. e. e., e., e.s. e.s. ch.s., e. ch.s.s. 8, f.s. 12, e.g., f., e., e., e.s. e.s., e.s.s. e., e.s.

As such, since the Ma (1) of the above [Attachment 3] 5.5.(1), the literal meaning of the Ma (1) of the Ma (1) of the said [Attachment 3] does not exclude the Machopathy, but refers to the Machopathy in itself; non-abromothy of the Plaintiff’s wound falls under vertepathy of vertepathy; as seen earlier, the Malithy is classified into the Malithy function and the mathy function; thus, the Malithy is an area that must be evaluated differently from the Malithy function. In light of the above, it is reasonable to interpret Article 8-3 [Attachment 3] 5(5) of the Enforcement Rule as a different provision on the rating of injury depending on the degree of loss of labor ability in the case of the Mamoth caused by damage to the Malithy.

According to the records, there is a conflict between the medical opinion and the purport that “the scope of occupation eligible for employment due to the same passage remains to a certain extent, but the scope of occupation is considerably limited” with respect to the degree of the same class caused to the Plaintiff due to the left-hand balves damage.”

If so, the court below should have reviewed the Plaintiff’s existence of balves due to balves damage, which is likely to cause trouble to labor, and should have determined whether the Plaintiff constitutes “a person with labor ability to a certain extent, but with considerable limited scope of occupation available due to balves,” as alleged by the Plaintiff, the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s remaining assertion. In so determining, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by failing to have deliberated deliberation.

The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)