In a case where Gap and Eul who were enrolled in the second grade of high school participated in the "military experience activities", and died in the sea while leaving the sea, and the head of the Gun requested ex officio recognition of a deceased person, but made a decision not to recognize a deceased person as a deceased person, the case holding that it is difficult to view Gap and Eul as a deceased person for the deceased and wounded for the purpose of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons Who were killed and wounded for the Public Good, etc.

In a case where Gap and Eul who were enrolled in the second grade of high school participated in the "military experience activities" and died in the sea, and the head of the Gun requested ex officio recognition of a doctor, but the Minister of Health and Welfare made a decision not to recognize a doctor, the case held that it is difficult to view that the student's act of rescue and relief was directly conducted with Gap and Eul as a result of the police investigation after about one year and five months from the accident, on the ground that there was no student who directly appeared to have been present at the time of the accident, and that the student appeared to have been present at the time of the accident with Eul, unlike the statement at the time of the accident, in light of the fact that a considerable number of students' written statements were used almost similar words such as "I am out of the old life jackets" and "I am out of the sea, and died in the sea," and that it was difficult to view that the student's act of rescue and self-help with Gap was directly and voluntarily prepared for the purpose of his own rescue and support.

Article 2 subparagraph 1 of Article 2 and Article 3 (1) 6 of the Act on Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished or Deceased for Public Good

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Law Firm citizens, Attorneys Kim Ba-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Minister of Health and Welfare

June 10, 2016

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

On December 14, 2015, the Defendant’s decision not to grant recognition to the Plaintiffs is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Plaintiff 1’s children, who were attending the second grade of the high school annexed to the ○○ University, and Nonparty 1 and Plaintiff 2’s children, who were attending the second grade of the high school, participated in “the second grade military experience activities”. On July 18, 2013, the “IBS training” was completed using rubber boats together with other two students in the sea near the Yan-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, and on the same day, at around 16:49 on the same day, Nonparty 1 got out of the Gun, Gun, 10, and 10, and 8, while proceeding into the sea, followed by Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2’s “amali training” (hereinafter “the instant training”). From among these circumstances, Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 4 died without Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 4 died from the sea (hereinafter “the instant training”).

B. On September 26, 2013, the head of Taean-Gun filed an ex officio request with the Defendant for recognition of intention, and the Defendant recognized Nonparty 3 as a doctor, but notified the Plaintiffs of the decision not to grant recognition of intention on December 14, 2015 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the grounds that the grounds that Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 (hereinafter “the deceased”) died while making rescue efforts are insufficient (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Relevant statutes;

Attached Form "Related Acts and subordinate statutes" shall be as stated.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Facts of recognition

1) When students participating in the instant training were placed in the tidelands, some students were faced with large scale, which was going to the tidelands, and some students were faced with the tidelands, and students who were not faced with the tidelands were made human belts by putting their descendants.

2) While 10 or 15 students, including Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2, were dead from water, students who were missing from a sandbar and were suffering from a sandbar were rescued as near each other’s grandchildren.

3) Afterwards confirmed that five students were gathered on the coast and inspected the number of students, and the number of students was lost.

4) Some of the students prepared a written statement concerning the accident situation at the time of the instant accident, and some of them appeared at the Pacific Ocean Police Station in the Asia Coast Guard on the following day and underwent an investigation into the situation at the time. There was no reference as to the act of rescue of the Deceased.

5) Around December 2014, students drafted a written statement that Nonparty 2 rescued another student while forming a human belt. Around January 2015, the Plaintiffs and Nonparty 6 and Nonparty 7’s father Nonparty 7 requested the Defendant to review the instant accident.

6) On July 27, 2015 and July 28, 2015, the Defendant held an interview to some of the students who prepared the written statement.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 5, Eul evidence Nos. 4 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Determination

1) Article 3(1)6 of the Act on Honorable Treatment of and Support for Persons Wounded or wounded for Public Good (hereinafter “the Act”) provides that “When a person is killed or wounded while making rescue efforts for another person’s life or body in the course of performing water play, etc. at a beach, river, valley, or any other place, and where a person is killed or wounded.” Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Act provides that “the term “rescue” means the direct and affirmative act conducted to rescue another person’s life, body, or property in imminent danger at risk of one’s own life or body danger.”

2) In light of the following circumstances revealed in light of the aforementioned facts and the purport of the entire arguments, the evidence alone presented is insufficient to deem that the deceased was killed while providing rescue services to the students who were in water and thus constituted a doctor as prescribed by the Act, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

① 이 사건 사고 직후 학생들은 경찰의 조사를 받았는데, 당시 구조 상황에 대하여 묻는 질문에 소외 3이 뭍에 나왔다가 다른 학생들을 구하기 위해 바다로 맨몸으로 다시 들어가서 구조행위를 하였다는 점은 여러 명이 목격하였거나 들었다고 진술한 반면, 망인들에 대하여는 구조행위를 하는 것을 직접 목격하였다고 진술한 학생은 없고, 많은 학생들이 인간 띠를 만들어 구조를 하였는데 거기에 포함되어 있었을 것이라는 취지의 진술만 하였다.

② After approximately one year and five months from the time of the instant accident, the Deceased expressed that students had observed rescue activities, unlike the statements at the time of the accident, unlike the statements that were made by the Deceased. Many of the students’ written statements used almost similar words, “I think I would like to see I would like to think I would like to live in I would like to know I would like to know I would like to know I would like to know I would like to be in an imminent situation where I would not have any location.” There is doubt as to whether students have prepared a written statement independently and voluntarily.

③ In full view of all the subsequent statements from the time of the first statement of the student at the time of the student’s accident, the principal means of saving other students suffering from water would have knife each other’s hand and make the human belt. In addition to the students in the safety area, the nature of the cooperative work for the formation of the human belt appears to be the same for the students in the remainder of water, and there is no evidence to find out whether such act was a direct and active act to seek another student. In particular, in light of the fact that the decedent was not rescued or other students’ statements, it appears that the decedent was located at the end of the human belt, but it was difficult to actively rescue other students on the location.

④ From among the students who died in the same accident, it is consistent with the fact that the non-party 3 was missing from the safety area, but the non-party 3 appears to have entered the water to save other students, and as many students make a statement to the same purport, there is a difference from the situation of the accident of the deceased.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in entirety because they are without merit.

[Attachment] Relevant Statutes: omitted

Judges Kim Jong-hwan (Presiding Judge) Kim Young-young