[1] The legislative intent of the Military Security System for Persons of Distinguished Service to the State under Article 73-2 (1) of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons of Distinguished Service

[2] The case affirming the judgment below holding that Gap's application for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State constitutes "a person of distinguished service to the State" under Article 73-2 (1) of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, in case where Gap, who served as a Air Force sergeant, was diagnosed as "a person of distinguished service to the State" in the field of a stable game in the military unit of the military unit to which he belongs, and was diagnosed as "a person of distinguished service to the State"

[1] Articles 4(1)6, 6, 6-4, 9, 11, 62, and 73-2(1) of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State; Articles 94-3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21686, Aug. 13, 2009) and the form and form of the text, legislative history, etc. In conclusion, Article 73-2(1) of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, which are the provision on the compensation for military police officers equivalent to those of persons of distinguished service to the State, shall be excluded from those of persons who were killed or wounded due to their own negligence or due to concurrent causes due to their own negligence without any justifiable reason.

[2] Where Party A applied for registration of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State after having been diagnosed by plucking, plucking, plucking, and anti-self-fluoral trophal trophy in the state of land, which is defluent to the left-hand side, while serving in the army of the Air Force while serving in the army of the Army, the case affirming the judgment below that the judgment below was lawful on the ground that Party A's negligence did not go against the duty of due care to avoid or properly prepare risks, and that Party A had a duty of care to avoid or properly prepare various circumstances, etc. which may occur during the games, etc., although Party A could have sufficiently predicted the possibility of getting out of the stables, but it appears that Party A caused the above wounds to go to the left-hand side of the stables and to lose the center, and thus, Party A was not a soldier or policeman on duty under Article 73-2 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of and Support for Persons of Distinguished Services to the State.

[1] Articles 4(1)6, 6, 6-4, 9, 11, 62, and 73-2(1) of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State; Article 94-3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21686, Aug. 13, 2009) / [2] Articles 4(1)6, 6, 6-4, 9, 11, 62, and 73-2(1) of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State; Article 94-3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21686, Aug. 13, 2009)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2010Du7710 Decided September 9, 2010

Plaintiff

Head of Jinju Veterans Branch Office

Busan High Court Decision 2010Nu573 decided September 17, 2010

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Article 4(1)6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “Act”) provides that a soldier or police officer discharged from active service or retired from office by suffering from wounds in education and training or in the performance of duty (including diseases in official duties), who is determined to have suffered physical disability falling within that degree of injury under Article 6-4, in a physical examination conducted by the Minister of Patriots and Veterans Affairs, shall be called “

Meanwhile, Article 73-2(1) of the Act provides that the Minister of Patriots and Veterans Affairs shall exclude persons who meet the requirements of Article 4(1)6 of the Act and who were wounded due to his/her own negligence or due to concurrent causes due to his/her own negligence without any inevitable reason among persons wounded due to his/her own negligence or due to his/her own negligence, from persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and their families registered pursuant to the provisions of Articles 4(1) and 6, but the provisions of Articles 9, 11 through 62 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the wounded and their families. Accordingly, Article 94-3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21686, Aug. 13, 2009) provides that "any person who was wounded due to an accident or accident caused by his/her own negligence during collective actions, such as workplace exercise, physical training, fraud, etc. under his/her superior's command (attached 1]

In light of the language and text, form, legislative history, etc. of the above provisions, Article 73-2(1) of the Act, which is the compensation provision for military police officers equivalent to persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State, shall be excluded from persons who have been killed or wounded due to their own negligence or concurrent causes due to their own negligence without any inevitable reason among persons who fall under Article 4(1)6 of the Act, but shall be deemed to have been prepared to receive physical compensation corresponding to persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du7710, Sept. 9, 201

2. In light of the adopted evidence, the court below acknowledged the following facts: (a) while the plaintiff was on March 30, 207, when he was on duty as a Air Force Death soldier, he was on duty of care to avoid or properly respond to the movement of the other team leader; (b) around 18:25, when he was on duty of care to avoid or properly respond to the danger on his own by examining the movement of the other team leader; (c) when he was on duty of care to avoid or properly respond to the danger; and (d) when he was on duty to prevent or respond to the left-hand side, he was on duty to maintain the ground of this case; and (e) the injury in this case may be deemed as an injury or disease caused by a proximate causal relation with official duties; (d) however, (e) although the player participating in the stable competition was on duty of care to avoid or properly respond to the movement of the other team leader; and (e) the plaintiff was on duty of care to avoid or respond to the possibility of a strong contribution to the stable competition; and (e) the judgment of this case.

In light of the above relevant provisions and records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified.

The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the requirements for subsidization or injury on duty as provided in Article 73-2 (1) of the Act, or in violation of the rules of evidence as to the plaintiff's negligence.

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff who is the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn (Presiding Justice)