208 Ghana 44777 Damage

P (52 years old, South)

Attorney Lee Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Korea

The Minister of Justice Kim Jong-han

Type of immigration of the litigation performer;

October 9, 2008

October 30, 2008

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 28,056,00 won with 5% interest per annum from April 1, 2008 to October 30, 2008 and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. One-third of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 41,056,00 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of the complaint of this case to the day of the pronouncement of this case and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. A, while serving as a staff member of the Army 00 patrol team for the Army under the Defendant, died of tuberculosis infection in the Mountainous District on March 23, 1953, and the Army treated A’s death classification as a sergeant. Meanwhile, on March 15, 1952, the Plaintiff was born as a person other than marriage between A and B.

B. According to A’s report of the type E on the family register, the Plaintiff was born from around 00 to around 00, 195 with A’s children, and on May 24, 195, A, his father, was registered as the birth report, and at around 00, 1975, A was registered as deceased on March 29, 197. In the Army, from April 196 to 1997, the cases of the classification of death due to death due to death due to death due to death due to death due to death due to death or death due to death due to death due to death due to death due to death due to death due to death due to death due to death due to death due to death due to death due to death due to death due to death due to death or death on duty due to the ex officio review of the deceased Party as well as the change of the classification of death from around January 9, 1996.

D. On August 23, 2004, the Army sent a letter containing the fact of changing the deceased’s death on duty at 00,000 square meters away from 00,000 square meters away from the deceased’s military register, which is the domicile on the deceased’s military register. On May 25, 2007, the Plaintiff was notified on March 23, 1953 that the deceased’s death on duty was verified by the deceased’s death on duty, and that it would undergo procedures such as the registration of persons of distinguished service to the State, along with a death certificate verifying that the deceased’s death on duty was conducted on March 23, 1953.

E. Accordingly, while the Plaintiff intended to apply for the registration of a person of distinguished service to A in the Ministry of Patriots and Veterans, the Plaintiff’s family register was improperly registered as the birth report of the Plaintiff after March 23, 1953, which was the actual date of death, and the Plaintiff was not recognized as the natural father of the deceased.

F. On June 11, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a suit of recognition claim with the Daegu District Court Branch of Family Branch of 2007Ddan11851 on November 22, 2007, and received the judgment that "the Plaintiff is the deceased's natural father," and accordingly, registered the above judgment in the Plaintiff's family register on December 27, 2007.

G. Meanwhile, on July 23, 2007, the Plaintiff filed an application for correction of the family register with respect to A in the Daegu District Court resident support on August 13, 2007 and received the permission decision on August 13, 2007, and accordingly, on August 22, 2007, A’s family register was corrected to be “line of duty on March 23, 1953 during his military service.”

H. The Plaintiff filed an application for registration with the Minister of Patriots and Veterans Affairs on December 28, 2007, and received compensation for bereaved families from December 15, 2007, as the Council A deliberated and resolved as a person of distinguished service to the State on December 31, 2007.

【Reasons for Recognition】

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (amended by the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, Sept. 30, 1997), the Minister of National Defense (the Chief of Staff of each service delegated by the Act on the Treatment of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State) as the head of an agency affiliated with the military shall promptly notify the Minister of Patriots and Veterans Affairs of the fact that he/she died on duty, and at the same time notify the person who has rendered distinguished service to the State, his/her bereaved family members or his/her family members of the procedures for application for registration and examination. However, the Army Chief of Staff did not notify the Plaintiff, a bereaved family member of the fact that he/she died on duty, and did not receive compensation and various medical benefits, employment benefits, and educational benefits, which the Plaintiff could have received from the State during the period of not applying for registration of persons of distinguished Service to the State.

B. (1) The defendant's notification on the death of the deceased is limited to the spouse, children, etc., and the plaintiff was registered as the father of the deceased's family register on December 26, 2007. Thus, the plaintiff did not have a duty to notify the plaintiff of the change of the deceased's death on the deceased's family register. However, as seen above, the plaintiff is the father of the deceased's family register, but the report of the birth on the family register was illegal after the deceased's death of the deceased, and the plaintiff was registered as the deceased's child under the deceased's family register at the time of the change of the deceased's death classification for the deceased's death, so the defendant was obligated to notify the plaintiff as the bereaved family under the family register at the time of the change of the deceased's death classification for the deceased's death as the deceased's child

(2) In addition, the defendant argued that there was no negligence on the delayed notification of the deceased's death classification, but when considering the fact that the deceased's death causes were changed to death on duty around 1997, and most of the beneficiaries' addresses are unclear. In the case of the resident computer network, it was practically impossible for the public officials in charge to immediately notify the deceased's bereaved family members of the change in the classification of death after 1989 and the computerization of the family register was completed after 2002. The Gun has endeavored to correct the national cemetery abolition, to find the bereaved family through the commander of each local reserve force, to find the bereaved family through the newspaper advertisement. Therefore, considering the fact that the deceased's death classification notification was delayed, the defendant's assertion that there was no negligence on the delayed notification period to the plaintiff and the method that the State can take to find the deceased's bereaved family (such as the visit to the main land and its surrounding area, and the family register investigation, etc.). Therefore, it is difficult to conclude that the defendant's above assertion alone did not have any other evidence.

(3) The defendant alleged that he sent a notice of change in the person who died on August 23, 2004 to his domicile, and that he performed the duty of notification. However, the duty of notification to the bereaved family of the person who died on duty is to inform his bereaved family members of the fact of having died on duty and enable them to receive veterans benefits by following the procedure for applying for registration of persons who died on duty. Thus, if the notice of change in the person who died on duty is not delivered to his bereaved family, the duty of notification shall not be deemed to have been fulfilled.

3. Scope of damages.

(a) Property damage;

The fact that the plaintiff could have received compensation if he had been registered as his bereaved family member of distinguished service to the State was 280,000, 310,000 won in April 2004, 360,000 in 205, 420,000 in April 2006, 496,000 in 205, and 496,000 in 205 is not a dispute between the parties. As such, the defendant's breach of duty to notify the change of his deceased family member of this case, which the plaintiff sought from April 2003 to November 205, 2007 x 21,056,50 won in x 20,520,000 won in x 280,000 won in x 30,000 won in 203,304,205 x 205 months in 205)

B. As the Army Chief of Staff does not perform his duty of notification of the change in the classification of death, it is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the Plaintiff was unable to have the honor and self-esteem that he could have been held as a bereaved family member of a person of distinguished service to the State during that period, the Defendant is obligated to act in monetaryly. In full view of various benefits other than the period during which the Plaintiff was unable to be properly treated as a bereaved family member of a person of distinguished service to the State, and the amount shall be determined as KRW 7,00,000,

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 28,056,000 won (=property damage 21,056,000 won + solatium 7,000,000) and damages for delay calculated by the rate of 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act from April 1, 2008 to October 30, 2008, the day following the delivery date of the complaint of this case sought by the plaintiff, which is the day of the judgment of this case, and from the next day to the day of full payment, 20% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Kim Gin-hun