2014Guly 30613 Persons of Distinguished Service to the State and persons ineligible for veteran's compensation

(b) cancellation.

A

Head of Suwon Veterans Branch Office

December 11, 2015

January 22, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s decision on February 5, 2014 that rendered to the Plaintiff as a person of distinguished service to the State or a person eligible for veteran’s compensation shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 6, 2001, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was discharged from military service on September 13, 2001.

B. On June 22, 2001, the Plaintiff, after being discharged from military service, filed an application for registration of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State on the ground that “the escape certificate of conical signboards No. 4-5, No. 5, No. 5, No. 1, No. 1, 2001, was discharged from military hospital after being discharged from military service, and later discharged from military hospital.” However, on December 18, 2001, the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement decided non-conformity with the requirements.

C. On October 4, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for re-registration of a person of distinguished service to the State on the same application basis.

D. On February 5, 2014, following the deliberation of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement, the Defendant: (a) did not constitute a person of distinguished service to the State, as prescribed by the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (hereinafter “Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s application for compensation fell under a person of distinguished service because he/she could not be determined that he/she was suffering from an injury in the performance of duties or education and training directly related to national defense, security, etc., or that he/she could not be determined that he/she was suffering from an injury during military service, on the ground that he/she had reached a critical point in performing official duties as prescribed by the Act on the Support for Persons of Distinguished Service to the State (hereinafter “Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State”), but determined that he/she fell under a person of distinguished service since he/she had aggravated training and performance; (b) on the other hand, he/she did not constitute a person of distinguished service.

[Grounds for recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, 1, 2, and 1, 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Article 3(1) [Attachment 1] proviso of Article 2-8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State (excluding cases where an existing disease is caused or aggravated) is unlawful as it goes beyond the scope of delegation because it is not related to the matters stipulated in each subparagraph of Article 4(2) of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State. Article 2(1)1 [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State is unlawful as it goes beyond the scope of delegation stipulated in Article 2(2) of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State. The above Enforcement Decree is distinguishable from persons of distinguished service to persons of distinguished service to persons of distinguished service depending on the nature of the disease caused by war, grade, or childbirth, and the above Enforcement Decree is a discrimination in violation of the principle of equality stipulated in Article 11 of the Constitution, and any person is unconstitutional as it does not receive unfavorable treatment due to the performance

2) The plaintiff's post-sign escape certificate is not a disease but a wound, and the plaintiff's 4-5 and 5 - 1 ,000, respectively, is a wound where the military status occurred due to accident or cumulative wound while undergoing shock training, such as PT building, obstacle training, and happiness, while in military service. Thus, Article 3 (1) [Attachment Table 1] 2-2 should be applied, not Article 2-8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State. Thus, the plaintiff's necessity escape certificate No. 4-5 and 5 - 1 ,000, which all constituted the requirements for persons of distinguished services to the State. However, the disposition of this case which was not recognized as a person of distinguished services to the State on the premise that it is a disease is unlawful

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Article 4 (2) of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State provides that the detailed criteria and scope of persons eligible for veteran's compensation shall be determined by Presidential Decree, comprehensively taking into account the following matters, namely, the scope of combat or other performance of duties corresponding to a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State, the extent of duties, education and training, and the protection of the lives and property of the people, the background leading up to the death or injury (including diseases), the existence and degree of negligence in the person himself/herself. Meanwhile, Article 2 (2) of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State provides that the detailed criteria and scope of persons eligible for veteran's compensation are as follows, namely, the degree of relationship between the persons of distinguished services to the State and the State's defense and security, or the protection of the lives and property of the people, and that the persons who have been granted distinguished or aggravated persons of distinguished services to the State's duty cannot be deemed as having been determined by Presidential Decree in light of the aforementioned detailed criteria and degree of harm and danger caused to the person's disease or disease.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the above enforcement decree is illegal or unconstitutional is without merit.

2) Comprehensively taking account of the results of the examination of medical records and the purport of the entire arguments on the head of the New Year’s University Synife Hospital in the Republic of Korea. In light of this court’s results of the examination of the medical records and the purport of the entire arguments, the number of side signboards escape certificates are protruding due to genetic and environmental factors, and they are diseases that escape from the future without any mechanical pressure and escape from the future. In the case of a salute, the changed side signboards are symptoms of escape from normal eptional stress without having to check normal epidemic stress, and are distinguishable from the wounds caused by an accident or accident as a direct cause of education and training under Article 3(1) [Attachment Table 1] 2-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State. There is no evidence to support that the Plaintiff had a direct cause of accident or accident that occurred during military service while performing their duties and education and training, and therefore, it is not necessary to determine the Plaintiff’s side escape certificates without any reason further to apply Article 3(1).

On the other hand, with respect to the escape certificate No. 5 of the Plaintiff's 1,00, there is no proximate causal relation as it is difficult to view that there was a sudden causal relation because it was caused by injury during the performance of duties or education and training directly related to national defense, security, etc., or that there was an injury during the performance of duties or education and training during the performance of duties or education and training during the performance of duties or the occurrence or aggravation of external duties or education and training. Accordingly, the instant disposition that did not meet the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran's compensation is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges Lee Sung-ho

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.