The case holding that the causal relationship between the deceased's death and the performance of official duties cannot be recognized on the ground that an extension of his/her duty was caused not by a private act but by a private act, in the event that he/she participated in a meeting by the direction of the commander of the police box held by the committee for the crime prevention of death.

The case holding that the causal relationship between the deceased's death and the performance of official duties cannot be recognized on the ground that an extension of his/her duty was caused not by a private act but by a private act, in the event that he/she was present at the meeting of the Police Substation meeting organized by the Committee on Crime Prevention and Security, and went away from the

Article 4 of the Act on Honorable Treatment of Persons

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Jong-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Daegu Regional Veterans Administration

August 26, 2004

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant's disposition to refuse the registration of bereaved family members of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State against the plaintiff on January 28, 2003 (which seems to be written in writing on January 27, 2003) is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged in accordance with the purport of Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 9 through 12, 20, Eul evidence 18-6 through 9, and all of the arguments.

A. On February 5, 1972, the Plaintiff’s husband, Nonparty 2 (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s husband”) was a police officer on public bond, and served as a substitute staff for the Southern Police Station from April 22, 1987, the Plaintiff died at the Namyang-gun, Chungcheongnamyang-gun, Gyeongyang-gun, Namyang-gun, Namyang-gun, Namcheon-gun, Namcheon-do, in July 18 of the same year.

B. On December 22, 2001, the Plaintiff filed an application for the registration of a person who has rendered distinguished service to the Defendant. However, on May 20, 2002, the Plaintiff received a decision corresponding to the person who has rendered distinguished service to the State from the Defendant, and applied for the registration of a person who has rendered distinguished service to the State on November 8, 2002. However, on January 27, 2003, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition rejecting the application for registration on the ground that the death of the Deceased is not

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

① The deceased participated in a camping room in accordance with the direction of the commander of a police box, who was a superior to his/her service status or service discipline, and died. In light of all the circumstances such as the purpose, character, content, cost burden, the number of participants, etc., the above camping room shall be deemed to have been an extension of legitimate performance of official duties. As such, the deceased was deemed to have died during the performance of official duties. In addition, in light of the present state situation at the time, the deceased was presumed to have died at the core cost due to excessive performance of official duties, and thus, the deceased’s death is presumed to have a causal relationship

B. Facts of recognition

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or are acknowledged by the overall purport of Gap evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 3-1, Eul evidence 4-2, Eul evidence 5-4, Eul evidence 7, 15, 16, 17-5, Eul evidence 8-3, 10, 13, Eul evidence 18-2, 3, and 8, and the whole purport of the arguments and arguments, and contrary to this, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 8-4, 5, 11, Eul evidence 1-5, and 12-5 and 12 are not believed.

(1) On July 18, 1987, the Crime Prevention Commission, which is a civilian cooperative organization of the Southern Police Station, held a camping meeting for public-private cooperation in Yyang-gun, Chungcheongnamyang-gun, Namyang-gun, Namyang-gun, and approved the attendance of the above camping meeting from the chief of the Daegu Central Police Station, and ordered the deceased, etc., who did not perform internal service at around 11:00 on the same day, to return to the camping meeting after receiving an order from the chief of the Daegu Central Police Station to return from the 13:30th day.

(2) At around 12:05, the Deceased arrived at a dry field amusement park and held a camping meeting, starting with the division of the police box, the staff of the police box, and the crime prevention members and vehicles.

(3) The Deceased left the place of the above camping village while drinking, but at around 18:00 on the same day, it was found that the deceased left the river at the bottom of the Southern River, the body of which is left the river, and at the time of their appearance, he was a swimming-unclaimed forest in the form of a bar at the time of their appearance.

(4) A doctor who examined the deceased’s body determined that the deceased’s direct deceased’s death was as dynasium, the intermediary, and the preceding deceased’s death at his heart.

(5) The Deceased was instructed by the chief of a police station as a substitute soldier to perform his/her duties, such as the intelligence and repair collection, etc., but was conducted in accordance with the direction of the chief of the police station, and the basic duties of the police box were not, in principle, not in principle, performed.

(c) Markets:

(1) Determination on whether a person died during the performance of official duties

In light of the nature of the above camping conference and the circumstances leading up to its attendance, etc., the deceased may be deemed as extension of his/her duty. However, since the deceased went away from his/her official duty and died from his/her official duty after attending the camping conference, it shall not be deemed as an extension of his/her duty, and thus, the causal relationship with the performance of duty shall not be recognized. Thus, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

(2) Determination as to whether death was caused by an excess

In accordance with Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 5-1, 4, Eul evidence 7, 16, 17, Eul evidence 8-6, 8, 9, Eul evidence 18-4, 11, 12, and 19, which correspond to the fact that the deceased died due to excess, are not trusted in light of the above facts of recognition, and there is no other evidence to prove this, the plaintiff's assertion of this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Doo-name (Presiding Judge)