logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.03.17 2016구단29739
상이등급 기준미달처분 취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's request for taking over the lawsuit is dismissed in entirety.

2. The instant lawsuit is filed on December 8, 2016.

Reasons

We examine ex officio.

According to the records, although the Plaintiff applied for a physical examination for reexamination under Article 6-3 (2) of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “Act”), the Defendant rendered a disposition on August 21, 2016 that there is no change in the previous disability rating (rating standard). The Plaintiff appealed against the instant lawsuit on November 15, 2016, but the Defendant died on December 8, 2016, which was after the Defendant received a copy of the complaint, and the heir B and C applied for a re-examination on January 5, 2017.

Rights to be registered as persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and bereaved family members under the Act on the Persons of Distinguished Services to the State and to receive various kinds of protections, such as educational benefits, are rights which meet requirements prescribed by the Act and are recognized as persons determined by the Minister of Patriots

However, in order to promote the livelihood stability and welfare improvement of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State by providing the honorable treatment of their persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and their bereaved family members, their rights cannot be transferred, seized, or offered as security, to any other person (Article 19(1) of the Act on the Persons of Distinguished Services to the State), and the scope of bereaved family members or their families entitled to compensation, etc. under the Act on the Persons of Distinguished Services to the State (Article 5 of the Act on the Persons of Distinguished Services to the State), and separate provisions are provided for the scope and precedence of bereaved family members entitled to pension (Articles 12 and 13 of the Act

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Du5037, Aug. 19, 2003). Accordingly, the instant lawsuit was terminated at the same time as the Plaintiff’s death, and there is no room for the Plaintiff’s heir to succeed.

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' request for taking over the lawsuit is dismissed, and this case.

arrow