205Nu23086 Revocation of Refusal of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State

00

Bucheon-si

Attorney Lee Do-young

The head of the Incheon Veterans Branch Office

Litigation Performers;

Incheon District Court Decision 2004Gudan1329 Delivered on September 12, 2005

June 30, 2006

July 28, 2006

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The defendant's decision on June 23, 2004 that constitutes a person of distinguished service to the State shall be revoked.

3. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in both the first and second instances.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's decision on June 23, 2004 that constitutes a person of distinguished service to the State who was rendered to the plaintiff is equivalent

The disposition shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 15, 1953, the Plaintiff entered the Army, and was hospitalized in the 202 Army due to the explosion of the Bancheon War, around July 1953, after receiving hospitalized treatment at the relevant hospital in around January 21, 1955 after having been hospitalized in the said hospital. Since the said injury resulted in a post-recluence, such as “two government-type, verbal disorder, and hearing disorder,” the Plaintiff constitutes a full-time soldier under Article 4(1)4 of the Act on the Support of and Support for Persons of Distinguished Services to the State, and applied for the registration of a person of distinguished services to the State to the Defendant on March 31, 2003.

B. Accordingly, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition that the Plaintiff did not constitute a war soldier on the ground that there was no specific data to prove that the Defendant sustained an injury in battle, other than the Plaintiff’s statement, and there was no specific data to prove that the injury was sustained during battle, and that there was no causal link with the name of the injury.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 2, Evidence No. 4, Evidence No. 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is unlawful

A. The facts of recognition (1) on May 20, 1953, the Plaintiff entered the Army as a soldier of the Army, and served as a unit belonging to the Army, and was discharged from active service on January 21, 1955. (2) On January 21, 1955, the Plaintiff was discharged from active service at the Hospital for the Army of the Republic of Korea, and was discharged from active service. (3) On January 21, 195, the certificate of honorary rank received from the President of the Hospital for the Army of the Republic of Korea on January 21, 1955, the rank was discharged from active service. (3) The certificate of honorary rank was written on October 1, 2008, but the name column was written on 00849, but was written on the name column of the Plaintiff's rank was written on 100 days before the issuance of the certificate of honorary rank. (4) The Plaintiff's certificate of honorary rank was written on 150 days before the date of issuance of the certificate.

(5) On the other hand, since the Army integrated hospital for the Army Capital does not keep the Plaintiff’s beds, the Plaintiff’s name of the sick Hospital at the time of honorary removal cannot be confirmed, and the Plaintiff’s name of the sick Hospital at the time of honorary removal was registered as the first-class disabled person due to the Plaintiff’s Gun number 000849. However, the number of the vibration interference in the military list is not 000849 but 000840. (6) The Plaintiff is registered as the first-class disabled person due to language and hearing impairment.

(7) At the time, Nonparty 00 received hospitalized treatment at a military hospital for an injury after serving as a communications disease in the Army 8th Telecommunication Team for the Army, and at the time, the Plaintiff received hospitalized treatment on July 1953 after suffering from an injury.

[Evidence Evidence] Evidence Nos. 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11-1, 2, 13, 45, and inquiry and reply to inquiries by the head of the Army Waterworks Integration Hospital for Party Members and the Army Chief of Staff

(b) Related statutes;

Article 4 (Persons of Distinguished Service to State)

(1) Persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and their bereaved family members, etc. (including those who are provided to receive the honorable treatment under this Act) falling under any of the following subparagraphs shall be given the honorable treatment under this Act:

4. Soldiers or policemen wounded in action: Soldiers or policemen wounded in action or in the performance of duties corresponding thereto, and discharged from active service or retired from office (including civilian military employees retired from office by suffering from wounds in action or in the performance of duties corresponding thereto on or before December 31, 1959), who are judged 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;

According to the above facts, even though it is impossible to confirm the name of the sick who was treated at the time by the Plaintiff as the patient was not kept at the beds for the Plaintiff, this is deemed to have been due to the fact that the Army Water Hospital erroneously entered the Gun number of vibration interference in the Army Water Hospital in the Plaintiff’s military service but was in charge of vibration interference, and thus, the Defendant cannot deny the fact that the Plaintiff sustained injury while serving his military service solely on the ground that there was no patient’s beds

Rather, in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff received the honorary certificate and the Order of Military Merit at the time of discharge; (b) the Plaintiff was discharged from military service on the rank of staff member on the honorary certificate even after the Plaintiff entered the military service; (c) the honorary institution was intended for a person who is unable to perform military service due to his major; and (d) the details of the guarantee of the authority officer who received treatment at the Water Army Hospital at the time similar to the time when the Plaintiff was hospitalized; (b) the Plaintiff was unable to perform military service for a prolonged period of up to 1 year and 6 months after being discharged from military service due to the injury of the head part that could cause the Plaintiff’s two additional documents during military service; and (c) the Plaintiff was presumed to have been discharged from military service due to his major injury, it is presumed that the Plaintiff was discharged from military service on active duty. Accordingly, the instant disposition was unlawful on the ground that there was considerable causal relationship between the Plaintiff’s language and hearing impairment and the two government model without determining whether the Plaintiff’s physical disability occurred.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance, which has different conclusions, is unfair, so it is decided as per Disposition after cancelling the judgment of the court of first instance and accepting the plaintiff's claim.

Judges Kim Jong-sung

Judges Jin Chang-il

Judges Kim Jong-ran