[1] The nature and authority of the decision to reissue a disability rating of a person determined and registered as a soldier or policeman in action in a certain disability rating

[2] Whether a disability rating re-classification of the head of a veterans hospital during the process of re-classification of a disability rating is an administrative disposition (negative)

[3] Whether the refusal by the head of the local veterans branch by the head of the local veterans branch on the application for a review of disability rating constitutes an administrative disposition

[1] According to the former Act on the Honorable Treatment, etc. of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State (amended by Act No. 5291 of Jan. 13, 1997) and the Enforcement Decree thereof, the act of reclassificationing the disability rating of a person already determined and registered as a soldier or policeman killed or wounded in action is a disposition to revise the original disposition of soldier or policeman killed or wounded in action. Although there is no express provision in the former Act on the Honorable Treatment, etc. of Persons of

[2] Even if the head of a local veterans office, etc. has conducted a new physical examination, physical examination, and physical reexamination by himself/herself in the course of determining a disability rating of a soldier or policeman wounded in action or conducted a re-classification of a disability rating of a soldier or policeman wounded in action, the above determination conducted at the relevant physical examination is merely merely one of the series of procedures for determining or re-classification a disability rating, and it does not constitute a separate administrative disposition having the effect of determining or changing a disability rating.

[3] Where a person who has already been determined and registered as a soldier or policeman wounded in action on a certain disability rating applied for confirmation of addition to his/her major to the head of the local veterans branch office, who is the head of the veterans branch office, pursuant to Article 7 of the Detailed Regulations for the Physical Examination for the Classification of Disability Ratings (Ordinance No. 611 of December 1, 1994), and the head of the above veterans branch office, upon receipt of the application, notified that the applicant cannot be recognized as his/her major, the above notification constitutes an administrative disposition that the head of the above veterans branch office, who is the person entitled to the determination of the disability rating, refused to re-classification of the disability rating on the application for the previous soldier or

[1] Articles 6 and 83(1) of the former Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (amended by Act No. 5291 of Jan. 13, 1997), Articles 17 and 102(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15256 of Dec. 31, 1996), Article 7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (amended by Ordinance No. 633 of Apr. 30, 1997) / [2] Articles 6 and 83(1) of the former Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (amended by Act No. 5291 of Jan. 13, 197); Article 17(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State

[2] Supreme Court Decision 91Nu9206 delivered on May 11, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 1715), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu356 delivered on August 27, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 2648)

Plaintiff

Head of Suwon Veterans Branch Office

Seoul High Court Decision 96Gu40136 delivered on July 1, 1997

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff, who was determined and registered as wounded in action in action at grade 6 1. 506 of grade 6, applied for an additional verification of his/her major, to the head of the veterans office (the head of the veterans office) to the effect that he/she would have changed his/her disability rating because he/she was omitted at the time of the above determination and registration. However, after inquiring the Chief of Staff of the Army about whether he/she falls under his/her major, he/she could not be recognized as his/her major, and notified the plaintiff that he/she could not be recognized as his/her major, after he/she was notified by the Chief of Staff of his/her non-recognition of his/her major. Accordingly, the court below rejected the above action against the head of the veterans hospital by applying for a physical examination for classification of his/her disability rating, and if he/she is dissatisfied with such determination, he/she should file an administrative lawsuit against the head of the veterans hospital.

However, under Article 6 of the former Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State (amended by Act No. 5291, Jan. 13, 1997; hereinafter the same shall apply), a person who has the authority to determine a certain disability rating as a soldier or policeman wounded in action, and Article 83 (1) of the Act and Article 102 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15256, Dec. 31, 1996; hereinafter the same shall apply) shall be delegated to the head of a regional veterans office or the head of a regional veterans office (hereinafter referred to as the "head of a regional veterans office, etc.") with the authority to rate the reclassification of a disability rating after being revised by Act No. 5291, Jul. 13, 1997; however, a person who has the authority to rate the reclassification of a disability rating already determined or revised by the head of a regional veterans office, etc. as a result of the new physical examination and resolution conducted by the Association.

Therefore, if a plaintiff who has already been determined and registered as a soldier or policeman wounded in action on a certain disability rating applied for verification of a major injury in accordance with Article 7 of the Detailed Regulations for the Physical Examination for Disability Classification (No. 611 of the Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs Directive of December 1, 1994) and the defendant who has received the application cannot be recognized as his major, the above notification constitutes an administrative disposition that the defendant, who is the person entitled to decision on the disability rating, rejected the reclassification of the disability rating and is the final disposition that the defendant, as the person entitled to decision on the disability rating, refused the reclassification of the disability rating as to the application

Nevertheless, the lower court presumed that the disability rating re-classification of the head of the veterans hospital constitutes an administrative disposition that determines the reclassification of the disability rating, and rather, denied the disposition on the ground that the Defendant’s refusal to verify the above disability rating was merely an act prior to the above disability rating re-classification. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on administrative disposition subject to appeal, thereby adversely affecting

The appeal pointing this out is with merit.

Therefore, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Seo Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)