2011Guhap162 Revocation of revocation of registration of persons of distinguished service to the State

A

Head of Jeonju Veterans Affairs Office

September 27, 2011

October 25, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s revocation of the registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State on June 11, 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 1, 2004, the Plaintiff was appointed as a local public official and worked in the North Korea's Office for the Protection of the Environment and B. On August 8, 2006, the Plaintiff was sent to the above village after receiving a report that the small-scale waterworks of the YO-gun C was broken out, and was dispatched to the above village and found the water supply pipe water leakage point. The Plaintiff was faced with an accident that gets out of the pool and sees the right to the right, and caused an injury (hereinafter referred to as the "accident in this case"). Accordingly, the Plaintiff suffered from the injury of the "human wave," inside the right stiff and outside of the upper right leg, and the injury (hereinafter referred to as the "the injury in this case").

B. On February 27, 2007, the Plaintiff was recognized as a person of distinguished service to the State (public official) under Article 4(1)14 of the former Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (wholly amended by Act No. 9462, Feb. 6, 2009; hereinafter referred to as the “Act of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State”), and was registered as a person of distinguished service to the State (public official) under Article 4(1)14 of the same Act.

C. However, on June 11, 2010, the Board of Audit and Inspection conducted an audit related to the wrongful registration of public officials who died in the line of duty in 2007, and notified the Defendant of the determination of the Plaintiff as the subject of review, and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the change in the classification of public officials who died in the line of duty in the line of duty, on the ground that “the negligence of the Plaintiff himself who failed to fulfill his duty of care without any inevitable reason, is judged to be a difference arising from competition” after deliberation by the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on September 7, 2010, but the appeal was dismissed on April 12, 2011.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence 1, 2, 5 through 7 (including each number), Eul's evidence 1 through 10, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the plaintiff was inevitably involved in the accident of this case even though the plaintiff got a slope as soon as possible, the plaintiff's negligence cannot be viewed as concurrent in the occurrence of the accident.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

1) 국가유공자법 제4조 제1항 제14호는 "국가공무원법 제2조 및 지방공무원법 제2조에 규정된 공무원(군인과 경찰공무원은 제외한다)과 국가나 지방자치단체에서 일상적으로 공무에 종사하는 대통령령으로 정하는 직원으로서 공무로 인하여 상이(공무상의 질병을 포함한다)를 입고 퇴직한 자로서 그 상이정도가 국가보훈처장이 실시하는 신체검사에서 제6조의4에 따른 상이등급에 해당하는 신체의 장애를 입은 것으로 판정된 자'를 국가유공자(공상공무원)로 규정하고, 같은 법 제73조의2 제1항은 "제4조 제1 항 제14호 등의 요건에 해당하는 자로서 그 요건에서 정한 상이를 입은 자 중 불가피한 사유 없이 본인의 과실로 인하여 또는 본인의 과실이 경합된 사유로 인하여 상이를 입은 자에 대하여는 제4조 제1항 및 제6조의 규정에 의하여 등록되는 국가유공자와 그 가족에서 제외하되, 대통령령이 정하는 공상기준에 준하는 사유로 상이를 입은 떄에는 그 상이를 입은 자와 그 가족에 대하여는 제9조 · 제11조 내지 제62조의 규정을 준용하여 보상한다"고 규정하고 있다. 따라서 국가유공자법 제4조 제1항 제14호에서 정한 공상의 기준에 해당하더라도 국가유공자법 제73조의2 제1항에 의하여 '불가피한 사유 없이 본인의 과실이나 본인의 과실이 경합된 사유로 사망 또는 상이를 입은 자'에 해당하는 경우에는 국가유공자로 예우를 받을 수 없고 다만 그에 준하여 물질적인 보상을 받을 수 있을 뿐이다.

2) In full view of the purport of the entire arguments as to the instant case’s health team, Gap’s evidence Nos. 2, 6, and 9, the Plaintiff determined that water leakage has occurred at the above point of the speech room on the day of the accident, and that the Plaintiff was subject to the instant accident by going beyond the ditches under the rash, while getting unfright and trees away from the rash to return back to the rash with the rash of the speechline.

As such, the plaintiff was affected by the accident in this case because it was not a normal passage, but a pool and tree were forced to move freely through the slope of the words and ethics that they were frightened, and it would have been expected that the plaintiff himself would have been able to suffer the injury if he was able to suffer the injury if he was frightened to a normal passage in order to avoid such a danger, and it would have been likely that he could have sufficiently avoided the accident if he was frightened from the beginning by paying a more careful attention to safety, and that he would have been able to expect the possibility of the injury from the beginning, and if he had moved to a normal way to avoid such danger. ② In light of the circumstances such as the fact that the plaintiff would have been frightened from the slope of the words and ethics even if it was inevitable for him to go beyond it, it is reasonable to deem the accident in this case to have been caused by the plaintiff's negligence or the plaintiff's negligence without any inevitable reason.

3) Therefore, the plaintiff is a wounded person for reasons of competition with his own negligence or his own negligence without any inevitable reason and is a public official on the duty of assistance under Article 73-2 (1) of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion against this is without merit

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, Kim Jong-tae

Judges Yoon Dok-be

Judges Kim Gin-young

A person shall be appointed.