2014Gudan10519 The revocation of the disposition of revocation of a prior determination as a person eligible for veteran's compensation;

A

Law Firm Doz., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Yoon Ho-ho, Attorneys Yoon Ho-ho, et al.

Attorney Lee Jae-ho

The head of Gwangju Regional Veterans Administration

October 22, 2015

November 19, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The decision made by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on January 12, 2013 as to the person eligible for veteran's compensation shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 1, 2008, the Plaintiff’s ASEAN (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) entered on December 1, 2008, and died on October 10, 2009 due to the occurrence of malicious species while serving in the military, and was resolved by the Board of Patriots and Veterans on June 4, 2013 as falling under the category of disaster death and death.

B. On July 16, 2013, the non-party C, the father of the deceased, and the plaintiff claimed that "the deceased was primarily supported or taken care of the deceased." Accordingly, the defendant's compensation division requested the chairperson of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement to deliberate on "the person who mainly supported or taken care of the deceased." On December 5, 2013, the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement deliberated and decided to the effect that "a person who mainly supported or taken care of the deceased shall not be deemed as supported or taken care of the deceased." On December 20, 2013, the defendant made a senior decision on bereaved family of a person eligible for veteran's compensation (hereinafter referred to as "the disposition in this case").

[Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

① During the marriage with C, the Plaintiff was divorced on August 3, 200 due to the assault, etc. of the said C, etc., and at the time of divorce, the deceased’s person with parental authority and custodian was sought to be reinstated, but did not do so.

② After that, the above C did not leave the deceased at the underground room of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, while making a work, and instead did so, he did not leave the deceased at the above site and left the school. ③ Accordingly, the Plaintiff created the deceased’s bottom and left the school as soon as possible, took part in the insurance and housing installment, etc. for the deceased, and paid the premium and installment for the deceased, etc., and the university school expenses borrowed by the deceased were supported and raised by the deceased, such as reimbursement by the Plaintiff. ④ As such, the person who mainly supported or brought up the deceased was the Plaintiff. Therefore, the instant disposition based on the different premise was unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) First of all, while the Plaintiff and C were married, they filed a divorce lawsuit around October 199, and on August 3, 200, there is no dispute between the parties as to the facts on which the judgment of the lawsuit became final and conclusive.

(2) Next, as to the facts that C was able to live together with the deceased's care before and after the divorce, while leaving the deceased's care in the underground room in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, Gap evidence No. 3, Eul evidence No. 4-1 and 2, and the result of the plaintiff's personal examination to the effect that C was able to believe, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it for the following reasons. In other words, in addition to the arguments of Eul's 4,5,7, Eul evidence No. 9, Eul evidence No. 2, 6, and 8 evidence No. 1 and 2, it is difficult to view the above facts that C moved the deceased's life at the school after the divorce, and that C et al., the deceased's registration of the deceased was cancelled as the deceased's death report on February 6, 2010, which was after the death of the deceased, and that C et al., the above facts were found to have been abandoned as the ground for the death report on the deceased's life after the death.

(3) Next, according to each of the evidence No. 9-1 to No. 14, it is recognized that the Plaintiff transferred the money to the deceased, and paid the premium and installment, etc. for the deceased, as soon as possible, by signing an insurance and housing installment, etc. for the deceased, and paid the premium and installment, etc. for the deceased, and as to the fact that the university expenses the deceased received from the deceased supported and nurtured the deceased, such as reimbursement by the Plaintiff, the fact that the Plaintiff transferred the money to the deceased, subscribed to the insurance and housing installment in the name of the deceased, paid the premium and installment, and repaid part of the school expenses the deceased borrowed by the deceased.

On the other hand, according to the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7, and 9 of the evidence Nos. 2, 6, and 8, it is also recognized that the above C leased the above D underground room and resided with the deceased, and paid monthly insurance premiums and part of the registration fees of the deceased.

(4) As long as the facts are as above, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff primarily supported or nurtured the Deceased because he did not leave the Deceased’s living alone at the above D underground room is without merit.

(5) Therefore, the instant disposition on the same premise is lawful.

3. Conclusion

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

Judges Park Jae-sung

A person shall be appointed.