Plaintiff (Attorney Kang Byung-hun et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The head of the Incheon Veterans Branch Office

March 16, 2007

Incheon District Court Decision 2005Gudan2091 Decided July 10, 2006

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant's disposition of notification of the results of physical examination conducted by the plaintiff on September 5, 2005 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 31, 1998, the Plaintiff was at the Dong-si Waterworks Headquarters of Incheon City, who was at the time of retirement, and applied for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State after retirement on January 4, 2003, and was recognized as a public official at the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement on January 4, 2003. As a result of the physical examination, the Plaintiff was determined as a disability rating under Article 14(3) [Attachment 3] of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (hereinafter “the Act on the Persons of Distinguished Service to the State”).

B. After that, on June 2, 2005, the Plaintiff received an additional recognition of the injury from the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement to “Machine Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Estal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal

C. Accordingly, the Defendant determined that it is unnecessary to apply the comprehensive determination of the injured party under Article 8-4 [Attachment 4] of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State since the Plaintiff’s official injury does not constitute “where the body of Grade VI or higher is two or more” as prescribed by Article 14(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State, and that the number of different grades was changed from Grade III to Grade III 20 to Grade III 20.301, Sept. 5, 2005, the Defendant issued a notice of the physical examination result of the reclassification (which recognized the same disability rating as that of the previous country, and is the same as the disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s application for reclassification of the disability rating (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du595, May 15, 1998).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is unlawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff’s disability falls under the category 3-17 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State, since the Plaintiff’s disability is the right-hand agriculture and the left-hand 50dB’s voice and this falls under the category 3-2 of the disability rating under the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State. Accordingly, the Plaintiff constitutes a case where there are two bodies of Grade 3-20 and Grade 3-17-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State. In accordance with Article 14(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State, Article 8-4 [Attachment 4] of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State, which is the criteria for the comprehensive determination of two or more physical disabilities of

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) According to the result of the physical appraisal and fact-finding conducted by the court of first instance for the head of the Silvera Hospital of the Silvera University, the plaintiff's disability falls under the right deaf and the left-hand 52dB, and thus, it can be recognized that the degree of disability falls under class 6-1-38 of the disability rating under Article 14 (3) [Attachment 3] of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Persons of Distinguished Service to the State. Thus, the plaintiff falls under Article 14 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Persons of Distinguished Service to the State, and thus, the disability rating should be rated according to the comprehensive determination criteria under Article 8-4 and [Attachment 4] of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on

(2) On the other hand, Article 8-4 [Attachment 4] of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State does not provide a comprehensive criteria for determination in cases where the two different grades are higher than Grade 3 (as the plaintiff, it does not provide a comprehensive criteria for determination in cases of Grade 3 and Grade 6 as well as in cases of Grade 2, Grade 5, 2, and 6 as well as in cases of Grade 2, 5, and 6). As such, as long as the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State omits any provision on matters delegated by the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State, the court is required to make a comprehensive determination on overlapping interest but has not provided a comprehensive determination criteria, it shall be possible to determine an appropriate disability rating in consideration of the purport of the Enforcement Decree of the

Therefore, the purport of making a comprehensive judgment in the case of a murdered injury or duplicate injury is that it is inappropriate to make an individual compensation or a more severe compensation for each injury. Therefore, it would be reasonable to determine an appropriate level of compensation through a comprehensive judgment on double injury. In full view of the fact that the standard of comprehensive judgment prescribed in Article 8-4 [Attachment 4] of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State is raising at least one grade in the higher disability grade for duplicate injury except in the case of overlapping class 6(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State (in the case of overlapping class 15 of the comprehensive judgment Table 15), it is reasonable to grant at least two grade 1 higher than that of the overlapping disability rating.

(3) Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful for the Defendant’s refusal to apply for a reclassification of disability rating to the Plaintiff and within the meaning of recognizing the same disability rating as that of the previous.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Judge)