Whether the special rules on disability ratings in Article 23 [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Officials Pension Act shall apply to cases where surgery is conducted for any other inverte disease other than inverte escape symptoms, or where surgery for any other inverte disease other than inverte escape symptoms becomes the cause of inverte fixing inverte, in addition to inverte escape symptoms (negative in principle)

The evaluation of disability is a principle to evaluate the physical function as at the time of the evaluation regardless of the cause of disability, and the "Special Rule on vertebal Efinite Efinite (7. b. 4)" (7. b. 5) and "Special Rule on vertebrate Efinite Efinite (7. b. 5)" (7. 5) under Article 23 [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Officials Pension Act are applied only to cases where the operation related to vertefinite Efinite Efinite Efinites was performed on the ground that it was performed on the ground that it was performed on the ground that it was performed on the basis of surgery related to vertefin escape, and the special rule on vertefinite Efinite Efinite Efinite is applied only to cases where it was

Therefore, in cases where an operation is conducted with respect to spine diseases, other than inverte escape symptoms, or where an operation on spine diseases, other than inverte escape symptoms, becomes the cause of spine fixing inverte, barring any special circumstance, each of the above special rules should not be applied, and in this case, each disability should be evaluated according to the general principles.

Article 3 (1) 3 (b) and (2) 2, and Article 56 (1) 1 of the Public Officials Pension Act; Articles 3 (2) and 45 [Attachment Table 3] of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Officials Pension Act; Article 23 [Attachment Table 1] of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Officials Pension Act

Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Jin-han et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellee)

The Government Employees Pension Service

Seoul High Court Decision 2015Nu40448 decided April 6, 2016

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to Article 3(1)3(b) and Article 3(2)2 of the Public Officials Pension Act, Article 56(1)1 of the main sentence of Article 56(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Officials Pension Act, Article 3(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Officials Pension Act (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree”), where a former public official who is entitled to receive a retirement pension is at least 19 years of age who was supported by the former public official at the time of his/her death and is in the state of disability falling under any of classes 1 through 7 of the disability grade under

According to Article 45 [Attachment 3] of the Enforcement Decree, “a person who has a significant climate or physical disability in spine” shall be determined by disability grade 6, and “a person who has failed to use one of the three sections of a bridge” shall be determined by disability grade 8.

According to Article 23 [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Officials Pension Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Rule"), where the criteria for judging disability grades are specified with the delegation of the Enforcement Decree, the term “persons who have a significant physical disability in spine” prescribed in attached Table 3 shall be construed as “persons, etc. whose actual exerciseable area in spine is limited to not more than 1/2 of the normal exerciseable area” (7. A. 3) and the term “persons who have become unusable in spine” prescribed in attached Table 3 [Attachment 3] of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Officials Pension Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Enforcement Rule”) shall be construed as “persons whose audience is completely demoted or whose exerciseable area is limited to not less than 3/4 of the normal exerciseable area due to damage to horses, b.7].

On the other hand, Article 23 [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Rule provides for a special rule on the determination of disability ratings with respect to the protein escape certificate. According to this, ① in the event that there is any incomplete vertebroin inverte root after undergoing an surgery treatment, it recognizes class 12 (b) and hereinafter “special rule on protein vertebroma”) and ② in the event that the vertebrate is carried out after removing a protein, class 8 is applied (7. b. 5; hereinafter “special rule on protein vertero”).

In view of the fact that disability assessment is a principle to evaluate the physical function at the time of assessment regardless of the cause of disability, regardless of the cause of disability, and that each of the above special rules evaluates the disability grade disadvantageously compared to that of other inverte diseases on the ground that it was performed with respect to the vertegal escape certificate, etc., ① special rules related to vertegalopsis shall be applied only to the cases where it was administered only to the vertegal escape certificate, and ② special rules related to spine fixedness shall be applied only to the cases where the operation was performed only to the vertegal escape certificate and the verte fixedness is performed.

Therefore, in cases where an operation is conducted with respect to spine diseases, other than inverte escape symptoms, or where an operation on spine diseases, other than inverte escape symptoms, becomes the cause of spine fixing inverte, barring any special circumstance, each of the above special rules should not be applied, and in this case, each disability should be evaluated according to the general principles.

2. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following circumstances.

(1) The plaintiff (the plaintiff (the plaintiff's man omitted) had had a disc operation in 1981 and 1994, and had received an emergency nuclear removal surgery on June 13, 2003. The plaintiff (the plaintiff's man omitted) had received an extensive long range of aftermacy and aftermacy surgery on August 5, 2004.

(2) The Plaintiff is in a state of interference with pedestrian traffic due to the limitation on spine exercise and the excessive sewage of a satisfying satisfy, due to the complete flafying of the troke (4-5 - 1,000) after the operation.

(3) According to the result of the first instance court’s entrustment of the medical record appraisal with respect to the head of the Guro University Hospital, the Plaintiff constitutes “a person whose actual exerciseable area in spine is limited to not more than 1/2 of the normal exerciseable area,” and “a person whose area is limited to not less than 3/4 of the three sections of a single bridge (the total number of the c/4 or more of the c/4).” The Plaintiff’s “4-5 pages, 5-1,000 ex post facto shock pressure, emulsion and the emulsion and the emulsion of the body emulsion” received by the Plaintiff, rather than solely on the ground of post signboard escape, and is generally carried out in the case of vertebrate emulculation, accompanied with the emulgrosis emulgrosis which is accompanied by the emulgrosis emulgrosis. In the case of the Plaintiff, there was a change in the escape certificate and its additional emulgrative emulgrosis.

3. Examining these circumstances in light of the relevant provisions and legal principles as seen earlier, the Plaintiff received surgery on the vertebrate culp culposis as well as the operation on the verteculp culp culp culp culp culp culp culp culp. As such, the Plaintiff’s disability rating should be assessed in accordance with the general principles, not the above special rules, but the above general rules.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that each of the above special provisions shall apply to the Plaintiff’s disability grade judgment by emphasizing only the Plaintiff’s medical treatment and the cause of vertebrate fixed surgery without properly examining the details of the surgery received by the Plaintiff, and only the fact that the Plaintiff was performed with respect to the escape certificate in the past. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the disability assessment criteria under the Public Officials Pension Act and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby adversely affecting the

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Min You-sook (Presiding Justice)