2015Nu51592 Action demanding revocation of the refusal to register as bereaved family members of patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants

A

Head of Gyeonggi-Nam Veterans Branch Office

Suwon District Court Decision 2014Gudan31678 Decided June 19, 2015

January 8, 2016

February 5, 2016

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on August 4, 2014 against the bereaved family members of patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants shall be revoked.

All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

(1) On October 19, 1966, the Plaintiff husband B entered the Army and participated in the War on September 4, 1970 from August 16, 1969, and discharged on March 29, 1972. B filed an application for registration of patients suffering from defoliants with regard to 'mathalopsis, negorisissis, chronic hemsis, negotisissis, negotisis, egotisissis, and 'the negotisississis disorder' with regard to 'the egotisississis' with regard to 'the egotisississis disorder' as a result of the disability grade assessment.

(2) On May 13, 201, B filed an application for re-examination of Maternal Blood, Brain, and urine disease, and on November 29, 201, “urine disease” was determined as actual aftereffects of defoliants, Maternal Blood, and Maternal Blood, but all of the results of the physical examination were determined as having failed to meet the standards for classification. B was determined as having been subject to further determination as having been subject to potential aftereffects of defoliants on February 9, 2012.

(3) B died on July 12, 2014, and the direct deather is 'bruptum, bruptum cancer (liver, brue)'.

On July 29, 2014, the Plaintiff, a spouse B, filed an application for the registration of bereaved family members of the patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants with the Defendant, claiming that B died of urine disease, an actual aftereffects of defoliants. However, on August 4, 2014, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for the registration of bereaved family members of the patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants on the ground that the urine disease, a actual aftereffects of defoliants, was registered and does not fall under the requirements of Article 8 of the former Act on Support for Patients from Actual aftereffects of defoliants (amended by Act No. 13605, Dec. 22, 2015; hereinafter referred to as “

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-6, Eul 3, the purport of the whole argument

2. The legality of disposition.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Article 8 of the defoliant Act provides for compensation to protect the bereaved family members of a patient suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants, and does not provide for restrictions on the rights of the bereaved family members. Pursuant to the purport of Article 8, “registration” under Article 8 subparag. 1 of the defoliant Act should be deemed not to include cases where a patient suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants was judged as a patient suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants. Therefore, even though the Defendant decided to register the Plaintiff, who is the bereaved family member, as the bereaved family member of the soldier and policeman died of the disease suffering from the rapid aggravation of the disease suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants, through a documentary examination, the Defendant’s refusal to register the Plaintiff

B. Determination

Article 8(1)1 of the defoliant Act provides that “A person who is a Vietnam War veteran and is recognized as having died of actual aftereffects of defoliants, who falls under any subparagraph of Article 5(1) prior to the registration under Article 4 shall be eligible for compensation.” In this case, where a disability is determined to have occurred due to an actual aftereffects of defoliants patient’s injury, the registration may be included in “registration,” but it shall be interpreted not to be included in “registration,” and thus, the Plaintiff constitutes “before registration pursuant to Article 8(1)1 of the defoliant Act,” and thus, constitutes “before registration pursuant to Article 4,” among the requirements under Article 8(1)1 of the defoliant Act. Therefore, the Defendant shall not be deemed to have rejected against the Plaintiff solely on a formal and procedural basis, but shall undergo a substantive examination as to whether B died of an actual aftereffects of defoliants patient who is an actual aftereffects of defoliants. Accordingly, the Defendant’s disposition is unlawful without the recognition of the grounds for such disposition.

(1) The State’s compensation for patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants and their bereaved family members is the part of a reasonable compensation for their sacrifice for the nation. It accords with Article 32(6) of the Constitution that provides for a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State and his bereaved family members, who are found to be actual aftereffects of defoliants, to the maximum compensation without being given to each patient and his/her bereaved family members, insofar as circumstances permit (see Constitutional Court Order 9HunMa516, Jun. 8, 200). In this regard, for the protection of patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants, the Defendant registered “urology” as a result of the physical examination for patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants pursuant to Article 6(2) of the defoliant Act and provided medical support.

However, if the bereaved family members of the patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants are unable to undergo any substantive examination as to whether there exists a causal relationship between “urine disease” and death on the ground that they registered to the purport that they would further protect patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants, contrary to the aforementioned protection purport, the bereaved family members of the patients suffering from disadvantage without reasonable grounds. In other words, the bereaved family members of the patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants may be protected as bereaved family members, and the bereaved family members of the patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants who did not file an application for registration may undergo the examination of causal relationship through the application for bereaved family registration pursuant to Article 8 of the Mara Act, while the bereaved family members of the patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants who were judged to be the patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants, are

(2) The Defendant’s disposition is not consistent with the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (hereinafter “Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc.”) even if compared to the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State. In other words, Article 6 of the Act on the Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State only provides that “any person who intends to be a person of distinguished service to the State, his/her bereaved family member, or his/her family member shall file an application for registration with the Minister of Patriots and Veterans Affairs, as prescribed by Presidential Decree,” and does not impose restrictions on the frequency of application for registration of persons, etc. of distinguished service to the State. Therefore, if a person subject to determination below the classification standards dies before filing an application for bereaved family registration, bereaved family members may be re-applicant for registration pursuant to the Act on the Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, and thus, if it is impossible to undergo examination of the causal relationship on the ground that he/she was registered.

(3) As alleged by the Defendant, in a case where a patient suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants was determined as a patient suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants and registered as a patient died rapidly, unreasonable results arise. In other words, if, as alleged by the Defendant, a patient suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants whose grade was determined and registered after his/her death, his/her bereaved family members cannot make the application for registration, he/she shall make a prompt request for reexamination prior to his/her death, if the difference in the grade was determined rapidly aggravated (see: e.g., 4,5,8-2). This demand that the patient apply for reexamination for a prompt and unreasonable period of time before his/her death. This demand that the patient be made an application for reexamination for the remaining period of time without reasonable grounds,

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified. The judgment of the court of first instance that dismissed the plaintiff's claim is unfair. Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The defendant revoked the rejection disposition against the plaintiff's bereaved family members suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants on August 4, 2014, and the total costs of the lawsuit are borne by the losing defendant.

For the same judge of the presiding judge;

Judge Shin Jae-hun

For the purpose of judge sex impulse

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.