[1] The elements of "a person who needs occasional nursing due to a highly advanced mental and chronic disorder" under Article 14 [Attachment 3] 2-101 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State

[2] The case holding that the part of this part of this part of this part of disability rating 3 [Attachment 3] 2] 101 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State cannot be viewed as falling under "a person whose function of an institution or voice-raising institution is entirely lost" of grade 3 2 of the above disability rating under the above attached Table, because of a cerebral defect, which is a kind of cerebral disease, which is a disability caused by an occasional nursing, and the right-hand paralysis and language disorder which requires an occasional nursing

[1] Article 6-4(2) of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, Article 14 [Attachment 3] 2-2-101 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State / [2] Article 6-4(2) of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, Article 14 [Attachment 3] 2-101 and 3-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, Article 8-3 [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, Article 14 [Attachment 3]

Plaintiff

The Head of the Seoul Southern Veterans Branch Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2003Nu4999 delivered on May 12, 2004

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

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's application for a re-classification of disability rating as follows: the plaintiff has a serious disability not upper right-hand side due to the brain flachising of the left-hand side; it is impossible to independently flachising language in the voice because all of the old-class, flachising, old-class, old-class, and back-class flachising are difficult; as well as the fact that one adult male and female care is required in his daily life, such as three-class, bath, clothes flachising, moving, etc.; as part of the above disability grade 3 of Article 14 (3) [Attachment 3] of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree"), and thus, it constitutes a comprehensive disability rating of the plaintiff's 2nd grade 1 [Attachment 3] and the above comprehensive disability rating of the plaintiff's body [Attachment 3].

2. In full view of each provision of Article 6-4(2) of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State, Article 14 of the Enforcement Decree, and attached Table 3 thereof, Article 8(1) and (2), Article 8-3 of the Enforcement Rule, and attached Table 3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Criteria for Determination of Disability Ratings by Physical Injury, it does not necessarily require any mental disorder and any chronic disorder in order to fall under class 2 101 of the disability rating, and it requires any occasional nursing due to high-level mental disorder or mental disorder. On the other hand, class 2 98 of the disability rating is not premised on the necessity of opening. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below that the Plaintiff does not fall under class 2 98 of the disability rating and falls under class 2 101 of the disability rating, and there is no violation of law as alleged in the grounds for appeal.

3. However, inasmuch as cerebrovascular disease is a kind of psychotropic disease, it is reasonable to evaluate that all of the neutism and verbal disorders caused by the Plaintiff’s leutism correspond to neutism in Article 8 [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Rule. Meanwhile, Article 14(3) [Attachment 3] of the Enforcement Rule and Article 8-3 [Attachment 3] of the Enforcement Rule provide that where occasional nursing is required due to high level of neutism, neutism falls under class 2 101 of the disability rating and does not limit the specific scope of the neutism. Thus, it is reasonable to evaluate that the Plaintiff’s neutism, namely, e.g., e., the right side vision and verbal disorder that require occasional nursing, falls under class 2 e.g., class 101 of the disability rating, and it is difficult to deem that the leutism falls under class 32 of the disability rating separately.

However, the court below held that the Plaintiff’s disability rating falls under class 2, class 101 of disability rating, and class 3, class 501 of disability rating, on the premise that the Plaintiff’s disability is only the right-hand paralysis of the heal system and the language disorder is not the impediment of the heal system, and that the language disorder falls under class 2, class 2 of disability rating, and that the Plaintiff’s disability rating falls under class 1, class 3, 501 of disability rating. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on disability rating, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Accordingly, the Defendant’s ground of appeal on this part is with merit.

4. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Kim Hwang-sik (Presiding Justice)