2014 Gohap70037 Revocation of dismissal of the application for payment of compensation money

○○ (Maternate: Maternate)

Daegu Seo-gu Han-gu

Attorney Jeon Sang-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Park Jong-young

The Minister of Personnel Management who takes over litigation of the Minister of Security and Public Administration

Only the head of the litigation performer, Lee Jong-soo

February 27, 2015

March 6, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s refusal to pay the survivors’ pension (compensation) to the Plaintiff on July 14, 2014 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 23, 2013, the Plaintiff’s husband’s husband’s ○○○ (the birth of February 22, 1974, hereinafter “the Deceased”) was a person who served as a slope at the Southern Southern Police Station, Daegu Southern Police Station, and died at around 00:11 of the same month due to a SPG’s accident (hereinafter “the instant accident”).

B. On May 8, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for the payment of the survivors’ pension on duty on the deceased’s death. However, on July 14 of the same year, the Defendant: (a) it is difficult to view the Plaintiff as the duty performed at the risk of causing high risk to the life and body; (b) the deceased’s death can not be deemed as the direct cause of the injury in the course of performing high risk duty as stipulated in Article 3(1)2(a) and (b) and (m) of the Public Officials Pension Act; (c) the deceased’s death during the course of performing his duties falls under “the death in the line of duty as stipulated in Article 61 of the same Act after having died of a gas explosion accident that occurred during his duties; and (d) the deceased’s death is difficult to be deemed as the direct cause of the death in the course of performing the high risk duty meeting the requirements as stipulated in Article 3(1)2 of the same Act.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In light of the fact that: (a) the Deceased was engaged in the Dob patrol at a night more likely to cause various crimes or risks than the week; (b) the Taegu Nam-gu, Daegu where the instant accident occurred frequently caused the so-called ‘the so-called Mab" crime for an unspecified person; and (c) the instant accident was an accident caused by an accident caused by an illegal gas filling to the employees of a gas delivery business operator who was engaged in the liquefied petroleum gas filling business without permission, and (d) the Deceased’s death while performing the Dob patrol at the time of the instant accident constitutes “the case where he was killed while performing the Dob patrol at the risk of the above examination on his life and body” as stipulated in Article 3(1)2 of the Public Officials Pension Act and died as a direct cause of the harm as stipulated in Article 3(1)2 of the same Act. Accordingly, the instant disposition is unlawful.

(b) Relevant statutes;

The provisions of the attached Table shall be as specified in the statutes.

C. Determination

1) According to Article 3(1)2(b) and (m) of the Public Officials Pension Act, if a police officer was to perform duties at risk of causing serious danger to the life and body of the police officer, such as guard and security of major personnel, and died as a direct cause, the police officer is deemed to constitute a public official who died on duty. However, if a police officer died of a disease not directly causing such danger due to an official duty, it shall be deemed to constitute a public official who died

As to the process of changing the compensation system for public officials who died on dangerous duty, most of the ages of public officials who are engaged in performing duties at risk of causing high risk to their life and body are 30 years old, and most of the public officials who are placed in the actual site were in the lower position and whose tenure of office does not reach 20 years. In the case of death, the compensation received by the bereaved family is merely a bereaved family’s bereaved family and bereaved family’s compensation under the Public Official Pension Act, such as the general public official, and thus, the bereaved family’s livelihood stability is insufficient. Accordingly, in order to protect the lives and property of the people, by strengthening the compensation for the bereaved family of public officials who died on duty and strengthening the compensation for the bereaved family of public officials who died on duty, while performing dangerous duties such as arrest, fire extinguishment, lifesaving, etc., under Article 20 of the Constitutional Court en banc Decision 91Hun-Ba of the Public Officials Pension Act (see, e.g., Act No. 2019, Mar. 24, 2006).

In full view of the legislative purport of the above Public Officials Pension Act and the text of Article 3(1)2 of the Public Officials Pension Act, the provision on compensation for public officials on duty in the Public Officials Pension Act shall be construed as aiming at providing compensation to their bereaved family members in cases where a public official who performed his/her duties at the risk of causing serious danger to his/her life and body is dead due to any danger that occurred in the course of performing his/her duties.

2) First, we examine whether the night watch conducted by the Deceased at the time of the occurrence of the injury constitutes “duty that may cause high level of risk to life and body”.

A) Facts of recognition

(1) On September 23, 2013, in which the instant accident occurred, the Deceased worked at the Southern Southern Police Station at around 20:30, and from around 21:00 to 23:00 on the same day, the Deceased started the police patrol from around 23:0 to 00, while serving in the situation of the police patrol.

(2) On September 23, 2013, the deceased and the deceased were employed at the scene of shock due to the instant accident on September 23, 2013 while carrying out Do guard, and on September 23: 45, 2013, the fire fighters sent back to the emergency room of Daegu Kaol Hospital, but the fire fighters were killed at around 00:11 on the 24th of the following month.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul Nos. 3 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

B) In light of the above facts acknowledged and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence as above, the night watch duty performed by the deceased cannot be deemed as a duty of high level of risk to life and body.

① Night guard duty performed by the Deceased at the time of the instant accident is to patrol within the jurisdiction of the Daegu Southern Police Station, where the Deceased serves, and constitutes a daily duty of a police officer assigned to the police box.

② At the time of the instant accident, the Deceased performed a night watch duty, which belongs to the daily duties of a police officer, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Deceased performed a duty to prevent the said accident at the risk of causing serious danger to the life and body of the police officer, or to reduce damage caused by the said accident. On the other hand, the Deceased performed a night patrol and passed the place where the instant accident occurred. In addition, it appears that the Deceased was killed due to the shock caused by the instant accident, resulting in the injury of external wounds.

③ As can be seen, inasmuch as the Deceased did not actually arrest the criminal or suspect involved in the crime, or do not actually perform the guard duty so as not to cause high risk to the life and body of the deceased, it cannot be deemed that he/she performed his/her duties in a situation where a high level of risk to life and body is predicted, even if the crime committed against a non-specific person in South-gu, Daegu where the instant accident occurred frequently occurs, and even if there is a high risk of various crimes or danger during night, such circumstance alone cannot be deemed as performing his/her duties in a situation where a high level of risk to life and body is predicted.

3) Therefore, as long as it cannot be deemed that at the time of the occurrence of the instant accident, the deceased was performing his duties that may cause serious bodily harm to the life and body, it is not necessary to examine the remainder of the requirements. Thus, the deceased cannot be seen as constituting a public official who died on duty under Article 3(1)2 of the Public Officials Pension Act. The Defendant’s disposition of this case is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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

Judges and decoration of the presiding judge;

Judges Suh Jeong-hee

Judges Lee Dong-gu

Site of separate sheet

Related Acts and subordinate statutes

▣ 공무원연금법

Article 3 (Definitions)

(1) The terms used in this Act shall be defined as follows:

1. The term "public official" means any of the following persons who serve full-time in a public service job:

(a) Any public official under the State Public Officials Act, the Local Public Officials Act, or other Acts: Provided, That military personnel and election shall be elected;

public officials in charge shall be excluded.

(c) Other employees of the State or local governments prescribed by Presidential Decree.

2. The term "public official who died on duty" means a public official who falls under subparagraph 1 and is on duty at the risk of causing high risk to his/her life and body;

(D) The direct cause of this hazard shall be the direct cause of the injury, suffering from any of the following injury:

The term "public official who died" means a public official who died: Provided, That the direct cause of any of the following harm:

Any public official who died of a disease incurred in performing official duties shall be excluded.

(a) Any injury incurred by a police officer or investigative officer in locating a criminal or suspect;

(b) Guard guards defined in subparagraph 3 of Article 2 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, security escort of important persons (persons), and counter-espionage and counter-terrorism;

In the course of conducting operations, traffic control and traffic danger prevention under subparagraph 5 of the same Article shall be performed.

injury suffered

(m) Other findings that the Line of Duty Death Compensation Review Committee referred to in Article 75-2 corresponds to an injury set forth in any of items (a) through (l);

at the end of the injury incurred in performing any dangerous duty.