[1] The case where a soldier or a veteran in military service suffers from a wound during military service and can be seen as a wound during the performance of his duties

[2] The case holding that persons who have rendered distinguished service to the State shall be eligible for the application of persons who have rendered distinguished service to the State on the ground that the degree of harm caused by the sacity of their successors resulting from a mistake in the performance of duty in the military

[1] Where a soldier or a veteran in military service was wounded in the barracks, it is reasonable to deem that the cause is a wound in the performance of his duties, unless it cannot be deemed that the cause is within the scope ordinarily accompanied by the soldier's duties, or it cannot be deemed that it is the reality of risks ordinarily accompanying the duties performed by the wounded soldier.

[2] The case holding that a person who was injured by a soldier in military service was eligible for the application of a person of distinguished service to the State on the ground that his wound was actualizing risks associated with military life, on the ground that: (a) the person who was wounded in the military service was a successor, and became an act within an ordinary scope, such as his successor's misstatement of duty; (b) although the person was unable to be deemed to have committed any error in the process of his wound at all; and (c) the person was the successor, and the person was responsible for his primary responsibility and the wound was caused in conflict between active duty

[1] [2] Article 4 (1) 6 of the Act on Honorable Treatment of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Nu444 delivered on November 27, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 284) Supreme Court Decision 94Nu8587 delivered on January 24, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1166)

Plaintiff (Attorney Cho Han-han et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Commissioner of Busan Regional Veterans Administration

1. The disposition that the defendant rendered against the plaintiff on January 18, 1995 to refuse to render distinguished services to the State shall be revoked.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

On January 13, 1992, the plaintiff was discharged from military service on the ground that the plaintiff was discharged from military service on September 9, 1994 on the ground that the plaintiff was discharged from military service on the ground that he did not suffer any injury to the non-party 1, who was subject to the above order of distinguished service to the non-party 6 under Article 4 (1) 6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on Honorable Treatment of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State on the ground that the plaintiff was discharged from military service on the ground that he was discharged from military service on the ground that he was discharged from military service on the ground that he did not suffer any injury to the non-party 1, who was discharged from military service due to the above injury of the non-party 1, the injury of the non-party 1, the injury of the non-party 1, the injury of the non-party 6, the injury of the non-party 1, the injury of the non-party 1, and the injury of the non-party 1, the injury of the non-party 1.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Provisions of the statute

Article 4 (1) of the Act on the Honorable Treatment, etc. of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State provides for the person who has rendered distinguished service to the State under the same Act, and subparagraph 6 thereof provides for "the person discharged from active service or retired from office due to a wound in education and training or in the performance of duty (including illness in the line of duty), who is judged to have suffered physical disability falling under physical grade conducted by the Minister." Article 4 (2) provides that "the criteria and scope of persons falling under paragraph (1) 3 through 6, 11 and 12 shall be determined by Presidential Decree." Article 3-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that "the criteria for the above wounded soldiers, etc. shall be determined by Presidential Decree." Article 3-1 provides that "the death or wound caused by an accident or accident, such as the person's intentional or gross negligence, or a serious violation of the order of the official belonging to the relevant statutes or the official order of the wounded in the line of duty," and subparagraph 3 provides "the death or wound caused by a private act."

B. Parties’ assertion

The defendant asserted that the above rejection disposition is legitimate because the plaintiff's injury, like the grounds for the above rejection disposition, falls under subparagraphs 1 and 3 of Article 3-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the above disposition, and the plaintiff pointed out that the above difference was caused by violence, such as taking the plaintiff's front body part of the plaintiff's 16 small team head, and it is not based on the plaintiff's reason or based on mere private fighting, because the plaintiff's above difference was caused by the plaintiff's import of fighting in violation of the work rules in the internal affairs team, and the plaintiff's above non-party 1 pointed out it out and took care of the plaintiff's behavior of disregarding the plaintiff's superior due to structural conflict and aggressive character between the duty soldier and the short-term soldier. Thus, the above rejection disposition of the defendant's above other premise is unlawful.

(c) Markets:

(1) Circumstances of the injury

갑 제4호증의 1 내지 4, 갑 제6호증의 1, 2, 갑 제7호증의 1 내지 4, 갑 제11호증의 3 내지 7, 12, 13, 갑 제12, 13호증, 을 제1호증, 을 제4호증의 1 내지 10의 각 기재(단 뒤에서 믿지 않는 부분 각 제외)에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 원고가 1992. 11. 21. 07:00경 일조점호를 받고 내무반으로 들어오다가 마침 위 소외 1이 근무수칙에 위배하여 전투화 수입을 하고 있는 것을 보고 "빠졌어"하면서, 현역병이고 위 소외 1보다 후임인 소외 2에게 웃으면서 "단기병들 군기 좀 잡아라"고 말하는데, 위 소외 1이 바로 원고에게 "너 정도는 내 밑에 애들 하나면 잡는다."고 말하여, 두 사람 사이에 언쟁이 오가다가 원고가 밖으로 나가자고 하였고(당시 위 내무반에는 원고와 위 소외 1, 2 외 단기병인 소외 3이 있었다.) 위 소외 1이 "붙을래"라고 말하면서 원고를 뒤따라 내무반을 나가 두 사람이 연대본부 옥상으로 간 사실, 원고가 위 옥상에 이르러 위 소외 1을 훈육하려고 하자 위 소외 1은 이를 심히 못마땅하게 여겨 시비하던 중 둔기로 원고의 전두부를 강타하는 등 원고를 심하게 구타한 사실, 그 후 위 소외 1은 평상시의 외관으로 내무반으로 돌아와 원고가 부상을 입었음을 알렸고, 그 때 원고는 위 건물 옥상에 쓰러져 있었는데 옷은 시멘트 바닥에 끌려 헤어져 있었고 양측 전두부에 외상성뇌실질내출혈, 두개골골절상 등을 입고 있었으며 후두부에는 특이한 외상이 없었던 사실, 원고가 위 부상으로 인하여 수술 등 장기간의 치료를 받고도 뇌외상후기질성뇌증후군 등으로 우울증 등 정신질환증세를 보이고 기억력과 지능이 상당히 저하되는 등으로 맥브라이드 장애평가표상 72% 정도의 노동능력 상실을 보게 된 사실, 원고의 소속 중대는 영내에 거주하는 현역병 75명에 출·퇴근을 하는 단기병 11명으로 구성되어 함께 내무반 생활을 하면서 초소경계 등의 임무를 수행하고 있었는데 종래 그들 사이의 갈등을 우려하여 소속 중대장은 단기병은 모두 야간근무를 하게 하였고, 정기적으로 화합을 위한 모임을 가졌으며, 또 사병간에 폭행을 하여서는 안된다는 내용의 교육을 수차 실시하여 온 사실, 원고는 고등학교를 졸업하고 대학입시를 준비하다가 군에 입대하였고, 평소 온순, 명랑하고 내성적이며, 임무에 충실하여 지휘 부담을 가지지 않던 사병이고, 위 소외 1은 고등학교를 자퇴하고 건축일 등에 종사하다가 군에 입대하였고, 건강하고 태권도가 특기이며 외향적 성격이며, 복무중에도 집을 떠나 혼자서 자취생활을 하고 있었기에 지휘관이 관심을 갖고 보던 사병인 사실 등이 인정되고, 나아가 위 인정 사실, 특히 원고의 성격이나 복무태도, 위 소외 1의 생활방식, 성격 및 특기, 평소 현역병과 단기병간의 갈등에다가 원고의 부상 부위와 정도 등을 놓고 보면, 위 소외 1은 활동적, 반항적 기질 때문에 평소 현역병들과 단기병들과의 갈등에 저항적 심리와 태도를 가지고 있던 중 원고가 별다른 악의 없이 그의 잘못을 지적하였음에 불과함에도 이를 심히 못마땅하게 여겨 선임자(준상관)인 원고를 완전히 무시하는 언동을 하였고, 이에 원고로서는 우선 다른 후임자들 앞에서 모욕을 당하는 것을 피하고자 위 소외 1을 밖으로 유도하게 되었는데 위 소외 1은 힘에 의하여 문제를 해결하겠다는 당초의 생각을 그대로 밀고 나가 확실히 기선을 제압하고자 둔기를 사용하였다고 추단되고, 이상의 인정 사실과 달리 위 소외 1이 원고로부터 수회 구타를 당하자 화가나 원고의 안면부를 주먹으로 때렸는데 원고가 넘어지면서 시멘트 바닥에 부딪쳐 위와 같은 부상을 당하게 되었다는 피고 주장(이러한 상이 경위는 군수사기관의 수사 결과이고 이 사건 거부처분의 바탕이 되었다)에 부합하는 을 제1 내지 3호증, 을 제4호증의 2, 3, 5, 6, 갑 제6호증의 1, 2, 갑 제11호증의 12의 각 일부 기재는 위에서 인정한 사실들에 비추어 믿기 어렵고(위 갑 제1호증의 7 중 1993. 1. 7.자 원고에 대한 피의자신문조서 중에는 원고가 먼저 위 소외 1을 수회 구타하였다는 내용이 있으나, 위에서 인정한 원고의 치료 경위 등에 비추어 보면 당시 원고의 정신상태는 정상적인 진술을 바라기 힘들었다고 보이고, 그 내용 전체로 보아 앞에서 인정한 부상 경위나 부상의 부위 및 정도와 맞지 아니하여 믿을 수 없고 오히려 군수사기관의 의도적인 축소수사의 태도를 엿볼 수 있을 뿐이다.), 그 밖에 위 인정과 달리 볼 증거가 없다.

(2) Whether a person has rendered distinguished services

If a soldier was wounded in the military service within barracks, it is reasonable to view that the cause of the accident is within the ordinary scope accompanying the duties of the soldier wounded, or that it is not a realization of risks accompanying the duties performed by the wounded (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu444, Nov. 27, 1992, etc.). From the above perspective, the above fact of recognition is not applicable to the plaintiff's injury, but it is not attributable to private fighting or causes attributable to the plaintiff. First of all, the above accident is not attributable to the plaintiff's private fighting, which is not attributable to the plaintiff's successor, and it is not attributable to the above non-party 1's private evaluation, and the responsibility of the plaintiff aggravated the situation is also different from the above non-party 1's duty, and it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff's act of non-party 1 was not a direct and different from the above act of the plaintiff's duty, and it is not a conflict between the above non-party 1 and the defendant's duty of non-party 1's injury.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's above disposition of refusal to grant distinguished service to the State should be revoked due to its illegality, so the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation is justified, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant who has lost.

Judges Lee Jae-do (Presiding Judge)