[1] The legislative purport of Article 73-2(1) of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, which is a provision on compensation for military police officers equivalent to persons

[2] In a case where Party A, who was discharged from military service upon her brate surgery during the training at the military forces, filed an application for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State, but the head of the local veterans office did not have any unavoidable reason to determine Party A as a person of distinguished service on the ground that Party A’s negligence was concurrently caused by official duties without any inevitable reason, the case affirming the judgment below which held the above disposition to apply Article 73-2(1) of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State to the State was unlawful on the ground that Party A was incurred during education and training or performance of duty, and even if Party A’s negligence was not caused or was recognized by negligence, the case affirming the judgment below that the above disposition was

[1] Article 73-2 (1) of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State / [2] Article 73-2 (1) of the Act on the Honor

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2010Du7710 Decided September 9, 2010

Plaintiff

The Commissioner of Busan Regional Veterans Administration

Busan High Court Decision 2010Nu5608 decided January 21, 2011

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Article 4(1)6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “Act”) provides that a soldier or police officer discharged from military service or retired from military service by suffering from wounds during education and training or in the performance of duty (including illness in the line of duty), who is determined to have suffered physical disability falling within that degree of injury under Article 6-4, in a physical examination conducted by the Minister of Patriots and Veterans Affairs, shall be called

Meanwhile, Article 73-2 (1) of the Act provides that Article 73-2 (1) of the Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to a person who meets the requirements of Article 4 (1) 6 of the Act and who was wounded due to his/her negligence or a concurrent reason for his/her own negligence without any inevitable reason among persons who suffered from wounds determined by the said requirements shall be excluded from persons who have rendered distinguished service to the State and their families registered pursuant to the provisions of Articles 4 (1) and 6; however, when a person was wounded due to a reason corresponding to the official’s injury standards determined by the Presidential Decree, the provisions of Articles 9 and 11 through 62 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the wounded and his/her family members. Accordingly, Article 94-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of and Support for Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State provides that “a person who died from an accident or accident related to his/her duties or who was wounded due to an injury” (attached Table 1 2-2), “a person who died or has been medically recognized due to his/her injury due to his/her own negligence.”

In light of the language and text, form, legislative history, etc. of the above provisions, Article 73-2(1) of the Act, which is the compensation provision for military police officers equivalent to persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State, shall be excluded from persons who have been killed or wounded due to their own negligence or concurrent causes due to their own negligence without any inevitable reason among persons who fall under Article 4(1)6 of the Act, but shall be deemed to have been prepared to receive physical compensation equivalent to those of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du7710, Sept. 9, 201

2. Of the judgment of the first instance cited by the court below, the part of the court below's explanation that "the grounds for competition between the plaintiff's negligence and his own negligence without any improper reason" under Article 73-2 (1) of the Act shall not be always appropriate, but in light of the records, the conclusion that the judgment of the first instance which affirmed the disposition of this case applying Article 73-2 (1) of the Act as it is illegal is judged that the injury and disease of this case was suffered in the course of education and training or duty and it was not caused by the plaintiff's negligence or recognized by the plaintiff's negligence, and the conclusion that the disposition of this case applying Article 73-2 (1) of the Act was unlawful is just. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the requirements for subsidization and injury

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)