logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2006. 2. 24. 선고 2005두16321 판결
[국가유공자비해당결정처분취소][미간행]
Main Issues

The case holding that it is difficult to acknowledge a proximate causal relationship between pulmonary Tuberculosis and public performance on the grounds that the pulmonary Tuberculosis was applied for registration of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State since the lapse of 40 years from the date of discharge, in case where the pulmonary Tuberculosis was judged to be pulmonary Tuberculosis of 100,000 from the date of entrance of the military; and

[Reference Provisions]

Article 4 (1) 6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State

Plaintiff-Appellee

Plaintiff (Law Firm S&P, Attorneys Shin Young-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant-Appellant

The Head of the Seoul Southern Veterans Branch Office

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 2004Nu7445 delivered on November 9, 2005

Text

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively considering the adopted evidence, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff was unable to be deemed to have suffered from the injury of 20th on June 10, 1953, on the ground that the Plaintiff was suffering from the injury of 3rd on the ground that the Plaintiff was under training at the 20th day of the same month and was under treatment at the 63th day hospital, and was finally discharged from the hospital on September 20, 1953 after receiving the diagnosis of 'waste tuberculosis activity '(hereinafter "the injury of this case"). The date of the occurrence of the injury of this case on the hospital established at the above hospital was “Fe. 25, 1952,” but it was difficult to find that the Plaintiff was suffering from the injury of 3rd day on the ground that the Plaintiff was under treatment at home and was under treatment at the 1958 National Hospital, and that the Plaintiff was under treatment at the 195th day on the left side of 195-20th day on the ground that it was difficult to find that there was a 2nd 3rd surgery on the left side of this case.

2. However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

According to the records, even if the plaintiff did not have any specific self-proof symptoms prior to the plaintiff's injury, it is reasonable to view that there had been symptoms of pulmonary tuberculosis prior to the plaintiff's injury, rather than the injury of this case after the plaintiff's injury, rather than the injury of this case.

In addition, even if the Plaintiff had performed his duties, such as training and station in an inferior environment after entering the hospital, it is difficult to accept that the symptoms of the Plaintiff have deteriorated to the extent that he was judged to be pulmonary tuberculosis in the middle class since he was deprived of consciousness and ten thousand days from the date of entering the hospital. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the symptoms of the Plaintiff have rapidly aggravated beyond the natural progress due to the Plaintiff’s performance of his duties. Moreover, considering the circumstances that the Plaintiff applied for the registration of persons of distinguished service to the Defendant only after the lapse of 40 years from the date of discharge (if counting from the point of time of the operation, it reaches 34 years from the date of the operation), it is difficult to view that there is a proximate causal relationship between the instant wounds and the Plaintiff’s performance of official duties.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that the injury of this case constitutes a wound in the line of official duty is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts against the rules of evidence or in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to a wound in the line of official duty, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)

arrow