2011Nu37321 Revocation of the revocation of registration of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State

A

The Head of Seoul Regional Veterans Administration

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2010Gudan10856 decided October 10, 2011

July 13, 2012

August 24, 2012

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s disposition of refusal to render distinguished services to the State against the Plaintiff on March 19, 2010 shall be revoked.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

○ On July 14, 1989, the Plaintiff entered the Army as a short-term soldier on the ground that the Plaintiff had an abnormal appearance and part at the time of undergoing the physical examination at the Seoul Regional Military Manpower Office, and entered the Army on October 12, 1990, and the Plaintiff was judged to have an abnormal appearance and part.

○ On February 1, 1991, the Plaintiff received the “refluence of the structure outside the slives of the slives of the slives and the slives of the outers of the slives of the slives.”

○ 192, 12 May 12, 1992, the plaintiff discharged from active service at maturity.

○ On October 21, 2009, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant an application for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State on the ground that the Plaintiff was diagnosed at B Hospital as “the next unstable in the inside of slovas, and the Madern Madern Madern Madern (hereinafter “the instant injury”).

○ On March 19, 2010, the Defendant rendered a disposition to refuse to render distinguished services to the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

[In the absence of any dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the fact-finding with the director of the Seoul Regional Military Manpower Office of this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On January 1, 1991, the Plaintiff was seated for at least 30 minutes in the body training with a full 20 km, and was repeated, and went back with knenee due to his repeated operation, but at the same time, the Plaintiff did not provide treatment on the ground of short-term illness in the unit at the time, and was under operation at B in the hospital. Since then, the Plaintiff submitted a medical certificate to the commander of a unit that requires medical care and rehabilitation for 24 weeks, but did not obtain approval, the Plaintiff was obliged to commute to the workplace for two months. In light of these circumstances, given that the instant medical disease was caused by training during the military service, or significantly aggravated due to such training, the instant disposition is unlawful.

(b) Fact of recognition;

(i) a statement of the person concerned;

A) C/D, the Plaintiff’s incidental bonus, submitted to the court of first instance a certificate of witnessing the contents as alleged by the Plaintiff, and in particular D, D appeared as witness and stated in this court as follows.

(1) On October 1990, the Plaintiff was placed in the 73th rank of the Bosil, and the 73th rank of the Bosil was a combat training unit, and the Plaintiff was placed in the 3rd rank Esil of the 205 jointly and severally.

(2) From November of the same year, the unit members, including the Plaintiff, were trained in an unreasonable period of time from November of the same year to December of the first half of the year, including large AT, joint RCR, shock training, and shooting measurement of the second half of the same year. At the time, the Plaintiff was aware of the fact to the administrative soldiers, senior knenee, etc., with severe pain on the left-hand knee, but all of the regular training courses was completed on the ground that there were many patients or no injury.

(3) Around January 191, 191, the Plaintiff was kneee and was kneeb, and the Plaintiff was kneb, and was kneb down after he was feld in the process of solidarity. However, the witness was felfed at the time of the Plaintiff’s getting off or getting out of the bus for commuting, and the Plaintiff was felbed at the time of getting off or getting off the bus for commuting, and the Plaintiff was able to have pressured the bus on the left side.

(4) At the time, the short-term private soldier was not hospitalized by the Plaintiff on the grounds that there are many patients, and the Plaintiff was commuting to and from the open bridge, and the Plaintiff was diagnosed and treated in B Hospital at the end of the week, and received knee surgery at the above hospital around February.

(5) After a surgery, the Plaintiff submitted a medical certificate stating the need for medical care and rehabilitation within 24 weeks after the surgery to the unit. However, the unit did not approve the Plaintiff’s medical care and rehabilitation treatment, and the Plaintiff went to and from work for about 2 months on the left-hand bridge after the surgery. The Plaintiff was aware of the fact that he was unable to apply for a knee-free out of knee in the course of genetic training.

(6) The Plaintiff was on a normal training at the time of entrance and placement of self-employed cars, and did not seem to have any inconvenience due to knee-free injuries.

B) At the trial, F, a superior of the Plaintiff, submitted a confirmation of the following purport to the effect that the Plaintiff’s assertion corresponds to the Plaintiff’s assertion.

(1) Before the Plaintiff’s operation, the Plaintiff appealed for a variety of training, such as shock training and dynamic training, and eventually, the Plaintiff was injured by the Do which was trained in the Do, and the her roof was cut off on the bridge.

(2) It is true that the Plaintiff received surgery on the left side bridge for a long period of time, returned to the school after discharge, and completed a course of study for about two months.

(3) From the position of a major executive officer, there is concern about additional injuries even after the Plaintiff’s operation and return to a military unit, but it is not possible to open the Plaintiff in the training after the military unit’s return to the military unit due to the characteristics of the military unit, and the Plaintiff was discharged from military service until the time when the Plaintiff was discharged from military service while knee is not good during the remaining service period.

2) Results of commissioning the examination of medical records to the head of G Hospital at the court of first instance

A) Plaintiff’s application

(1) The Plaintiff appears to have aggravated the progress of damage caused by training and credit after enlistment while being accompanied by knee-free opinions that undermine the stability of knee-free, due to an abnormal opinion on the left-hand kne-hand side before enlistment. It is highly likely that the progress of a short-term continuous training, excessive training, iceing, etc. has deteriorated.

(2) The instant injury and disease have a causal relationship with the injury and disease at the time of operation.

B) Defendant’s application

(1) On January 29, 191, the Plaintiff was hospitalized with the main symptoms to restrict the sports accompanied by the dynamics to the left-hand slot, and was diagnosed on February 1, 1991, following the diagnosis of the overseas instability, the post-satise satis, the post-satise satis, etc.

(2) According to the medical records of the hospital B, “the Switzerland waters before the three-year period, and the calendar waters before the three-month period,” the examination of the degree of specific instability or damage disorder cannot be verified in detail.

(3) The Plaintiff appears to have aggravated or additionally damaged after entering 1990 by suffering the knee-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne

(4) On the left-hand slot, it can be deemed that the left-hand slot has been unstable after the operation in 191 or that the treatment has been completed, but the treatment has been resumed. Accordingly, the status in 2009 has a causal relationship with the diagnosis and operation in 191, a military service.

3) There is no fact that the Plaintiff received a medical examination or administered on the left-hand bridge, including the left-hand slicks since 2001.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 6, Eul witness D's testimony at the court of the first instance, the result of the entrustment of medical records to the president of the G hospital at the court of the first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

1) “A soldier or police officer wounded in the course of education and training or performance of duty (including diseases in official duties)” referred to in Article 4(1)6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State refers to the injury or disease of a soldier or police officer during education and training or in the performance of duty. Therefore, in order to be different from the above provision, there is a proximate causal relation between education and training or in the performance of duty and the injury or disease, and the causal relation between the injury and the injury should be proved by the assertion. However, the causal relation does not necessarily have to be proved by medical and natural science, but it is presumed that there is a proximate causal relation between education and training or in the performance of duty and the injury or disease when considering all the circumstances, the causal relation should be determined not by the education and training or in the performance of duty and in the performance of duty, but by the average physical condition of a soldier or police officer in question (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du7979, Jul. 29, 2006).

2) The following circumstances revealed in the above facts, i.e., (i) the Plaintiff sustained injuries on the left knee part while undergoing training at the military unit affiliated with the Plaintiff on January 191, 191; (ii) G hospital where the medical record of the Plaintiff was appraised at the first instance court, has a causal relationship with the upper branch at the time of the operation; and (iii) even if there was a knee tye tye tye tye tye tye in the 1988 rink, the degree of contribution is 50% (it is reasonable to view that the degree of contribution of the present kne tye tye tye tye tye tye tye tye tye tye tye tye tye tye tye tye tye tye tye tye tye tye tye tye tye tye tye tye tye tye m.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the disposition of this case shall be revoked, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be unfair with different conclusions, so the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked and the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, the judge and the Gangwon-gu

The number of judges

Judges Noh Ho-ho