(영문) 서울고등법원 2011.9.30. 선고 2011누21548 판결

The decision that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on January 14, 2009 that did not constitute the requirement of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim against the revocation shall be dismissed.

Reasons

1. Scope of adjudication of this court;

On January 14, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the court of first instance for the revocation of the non-applicable decision of the person who rendered distinguished service to the Defendant. The court of first instance revoked the part of the non-applicable decision of the person who rendered distinguished service to the Defendant as of January 14, 2009. The court of first instance accepted the Plaintiff’s claim as to the part of the non-applicable decision of the person who rendered distinguished service to the Defendant, and dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim as to the non-applicable portion of the injury caused by the injury of the person who rendered distinguished service to the Defendant. Since only the Defendant appealed against it, the subject of

2. Details of the instant disposition

A. On May 19, 197, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was discharged from military service on July 18, 1999, when serving as a combat police in the fourth East B company of the Seoul National Police Agency (hereinafter “police company”).

B. On October 8, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State on the ground that he/she suffered from 'abrupt damage', etc. on the ground that he/she sustained damage during training in the police level.

C. On January 4, 2009, the Defendant: (a) confirmed that dental treatment was given to the Plaintiff on the part of the Plaintiff for injuries caused by drinking; (b) decided on January 4, 2009 that it does not constitute the requirements for persons of distinguished service to the State under Article 4(1)4 or 6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of and Support for Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (amended by Act No. 9462, Feb. 6, 2009; hereinafter referred to as the “Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons, etc.”) on the ground that the injury in the instant case was not recognized as different in the course of performing official duties because the specific degree of disability and the name of injury or disease was not verified.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, 5, Eul Nos. 3, 4, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On March 3, 199, the Plaintiff: (a) deemed that the appointed soldier C left his work place and drinks and drinks, and (b) was damaged by a treeer, C, at the time of entering the Plaintiff’s entrance and leaving the bar; (c) the Plaintiff was damaged by a fright to the right-hand side of the heak, the right-hand side of the heak, and the left-hand side of the heak; and (d) caused a disturbance to the dental function. While the Plaintiff was in the course of performing his duties, the instant disposition that the Defendant reported differently is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

1) The circumstances leading up to the Plaintiff’s fault

D, at the court of first instance, worked as the Plaintiff and the police forces, stated that “The Plaintiff would drink alcohol at work hours during the first instance trial on March 199, 199, while the Plaintiff was on the shift of guard duty, and that C and the police officers who were appointed soldiers would drink alcohol at work hours, and that they would have a drinking face from punch C.

2) The police hospital's 'Bronchial Sack'

원고는 1999. 3. 15. 경찰병원에서 이틀 전에 주먹에 부딪쳐 하악 좌측 전치 및 구치부 잇몸(치은, 齒齦)에 통증이 있다고 초진을 받았는데, 치수염(외상성, 치석에 의한 풍치)이 있고 턱 부위에 압통이 있으며 좌우 상하악 중절치, 측절치에 동요가 있다고 진단되었다. 원고는 1999. 3. 23. 하악 우측 중절치에 대한 발수(拔髓, 신경제거) 후 근관치료(root canal treatment)를, 1999. 3. 31. 하악 좌측 중절치에 대한 발수 후 근관치료를 받았다.

3) Medical opinions

A) Results of the appraisal of medical records for the head of the E hospital

The correct diagnosis name in the medical record is not recorded, but it is recorded that Haak 4 popia at the time of the first medical examination was in dynamics, and the fact that Haak 4 popia was in dynamics, and the fact that Haak and the left-hand side of the Haak were in hopia after taking care after taking care of the hopia on the right-hand side of the hheak and the left-hand side of the hopia, it is presumed that the hopia and the hopia were in hopia and the hopia were in hopia, and that the hopia was in hopia and the hopia was in hopia.

B) Results of inquiry and response to inquiries to the Head of the E Hospital

At the time of the first medical examination against the plaintiff, the plaintiff was in a state where the direction of the right-hand side of the Haak, the middle left-hand side of the Haakak, and the end-hand side of the Haakak, and there was a possibility of a lamination, but there was no content or image of the medical record or radiation, and there was no record or data on whether the lamination was damaged

사고 직후 촬영된 방사선 사진이 제출되지 않았고, 자세한 진료기록이 없어 원고의 평소 치아 상태에 대한 판단은 불가능하다. 치수염과 치은 통증은 충지, 치아 정출(挺出) 또는 외상에 의해 발생할 수 있다. 진료기록상 치수 괴사에 대한 내용은 없으나, 발수 및 근관치료한 것으로 보아 치수괴사가 있었다고 판단된다.

In the medical record, it is unclear whether the content of the medical record includes the Chewing inconvenience expressed as a school disturbance, or if there is an actual chromatic disorder. Medical treatment and inspection of the chromatic disorder.

record shall not be recorded.

[Ground of recognition] The written evidence Nos. 2 and 3, part of the witness D of the first instance court, the result of the examination of the records on the E hospital director conducted by the court of first instance on the E hospital director, the results of the inquiry of the fact to the E hospital director of the party, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) In full view of the following circumstances revealed from the above facts acknowledged as above, it is reasonable to view the injury of this case inflicted on the Plaintiff as a combat police officer during his duty.

① 원고는 1999. 3. 15. 경찰중대에서 근무하던 중 주먹에 부딪쳐 하악 좌측 전치 및 구치부 잇몸(치은, 齒齦)에 통증이 발생하였는데, 특별한 사정이 없는 이상 원고는 경찰중대에서 복무 중에 중대 내부의 누군가로부터 맞아서 치아손상을 입었다고 보인다.

② D, while serving as the Plaintiff and the police team, stated that the Plaintiff had been appointed soldiers while serving as the police team, and that the above statement corresponds to the descriptions of the police hospital's ‘Bedkick Sick Sickbook'.

③ There is no evidence to deem otherwise that the Plaintiff was wounded in the instant case while performing a private act that cannot be seen as performing his/her duties, such as a disaster or fighting.

2) Therefore, the instant disposition was unlawful on the ground that the instant injury was not recognized as a wound related to official duties (whether the injury suffered by the Plaintiff constitutes a disability rating under the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State, the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the Enforcement Rule is separate).

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the different parts of the plaintiff's claim should be cited on the ground of its reasoning, and the first instance court is justified in its conclusion, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.