[1] In the procedure of determining whether a soldier, police officer, or fire-fighting official was wounded during education, training, or performing his/her duty, whether the degree of wounds constitutes a disability rating under the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State and the Act on the Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran

[2] The case holding that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principle on the ground that the court below's rejection disposition cannot be determined on the ground that Gap's status and military service did not constitute a disability rating even though it acknowledged the causal relationship between Gap's status and the military service, where Gap asserted that he was injured by his head while serving in the military and applied for registration of a person who has rendered distinguished service to the State, but the head of the veterans branch office cannot recognize the causal relationship between his status and the military service

[1] Comprehensively taking account of the requirements and procedures for registration of soldiers and police officers wounded on duty, and the provisions of the Acts and subordinate statutes regarding the requirements and procedures for registration of soldiers and police officers, etc. wounded on duty (hereinafter “the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc.”) under the Act on the Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (hereinafter “the Act”), the registration procedures for soldiers and police officers and police officers of the Act on the Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State are clearly divided into two procedures, except as otherwise provided in the Acts and subordinate statutes. One is the procedure to determine whether the pertinent wound was wounded in the course of education and training or in the performance of duty (including illness; hereinafter “the procedure for recognition of a person wounded on duty”). The other is the procedure to determine whether the person sustained on duty

Therefore, if the degree of disability falls under the disability rating under the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State and the Act on Veterans and Veterans' Compensation, it should be determined at the disability rating determination stage after it is recognized to fall under the disability rating under the disability rating procedure.

[2] The case holding that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles in holding that Gap's disposition of rejection was lawful on the ground that it was not possible to recognize a causal relationship between his wife and the military service, in case where Gap asserted that he was faced with the head of his military service and applied for the registration of a person who rendered distinguished service to the State, but the head of his veterans branch rendered the disposition of rejection on the ground that the causal relationship between his wife and the military service cannot be acknowledged, since the above circumstances such as the above circumstance does not have any obstacle to the extent that he could be recognized as a person who rendered distinguished service to the State or a person eligible for veteran's compensation, and since it did not take into account in the process of disability rating determination, Gap's causal relationship between his wife and the military service cannot be determined as lawful on the ground that the above disposition was not a person entitled to

[1] Articles 4(1)6, 6(1), (3), and (4), 6-3(1), and 6-4(1) and (3) of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State; Articles 10, 14(2), and (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; Article 8-3 [Attachment 4] of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State; Articles 2(1)2, 4(1), (3), and (4), and 6 of the Act on Support for Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State; Articles 7 and 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Support for Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State / [2] Article 4(1)6, Article 6(3), (4), and (1) [3) [3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons of Distinguished Service to the Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2014Du10295 Decided November 27, 2014

Plaintiff (Law Firm Cheonger, Attorneys malewon-won, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

The Head of the Seoul Northern Branch Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2016Nu75014 decided January 11, 2018

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State”) classify persons of distinguished services to the State as 18 categories. Of military personnel, police officers, and fire-fighting officials, “military persons killed in the line of duty” refers to persons whose degree of disability was determined in the physical examination conducted by the Minister of Patriots and Veterans Affairs among those discharged from military service or retired from military service by suffering from wounds in the performance of duties or education and training directly related to national defense, security, or

A person who intends to be a person who has rendered distinguished service to a soldier or policeman on duty shall apply for registration to the Minister of Patriots and Veterans Affairs (Article 6(1)), as prescribed by Presidential Decree. Upon receipt of such application, the Minister of Patriots and Veterans Affairs shall confirm the requirements prescribed in Article 4 of the Act on the Persons of Distinguished Service to the State and determine whether he/she falls under the category of persons of distinguished service to the State (Article 6(3)); and when making such decision, he/she shall undergo deliberation and resolution by the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement under Article 74-5 of the Act on the Persons of Distinguished Service to the State (main sentence of Article 6(4)). The Minister of Patriots and Veterans Affairs shall conduct a physical examination

The degree of disability of a person subject to a physical examination shall be determined by dividing it into Grades I through VII according to the degree of disability (Article 6-4 (1)). In such cases, the classification of disability ratings according to the degree of physical disability shall be determined by the attached Table 3 of Article 14 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State according to the delegation by Article 6-4 (3) of the same Act, and the criteria for the determination of disability ratings for physical disability according to the delegation by Article 14 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act are prescribed by Article 8-3 of the Enforcement Rule of the same

Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State provides for the review and determination of the requirements of persons of distinguished service to the State. Where the Board of Patriots and Veterans receives an application for registration of persons of distinguished service to the State, it shall deliberate and decide on whether they meet the requirements of persons of distinguished service to the State and notify the Minister of Patriots and Veterans of the result thereof (Article 1 and 2). The Minister of Patriots and Veterans Affairs notified by the Board of Patriots and Veterans shall, after determining whether they are subject to the Act, notify the applicant and the head of affiliated agency thereof by specifying the reasons therefor: Provided, That for persons who meet the requirements of persons of distinguished service under Article 4(1)

Meanwhile, the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation (hereinafter “Act”) classifys persons eligible for veteran’s compensation as four persons. Of those who were soldiers, police officers, and fire-fighting officers, “accidentd in a disaster” refers to persons determined as a disability rating in a physical examination conducted by the Minister of Patriots and Veterans Affairs, among those discharged from military service or retired from military service by suffering from wounds in the performance of their duties or during education and training not directly related to national defense and security, or the protection of people’s lives and property (including diseases) (Article 2(1)2). The Act on Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation also has the same provision as the procedure for registration of persons of distinguished services to the State under the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State regarding the procedure for registration of persons eligible for veteran’s compensation (Article 4(1), (3), (4), and (6) of the Act on Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation

In full view of the requirements for soldiers and police officers wounded on duty and the provisions of the Acts and subordinate statutes regarding the procedure for registration of soldiers and police officers, police officers, and soldiers and police officers of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State and the Act on Veterans and Police Officers, the procedures for registration of soldiers and police officers, etc. of the Act on Veterans and Police Officers are clearly divided into two procedures, except as otherwise provided for in Acts and subordinate statutes. One is the procedure for determining whether the relevant wounds fall under the wounds in education and training or in the performance of duty (including diseases; hereinafter referred to as “the procedure for recognition of soldiers and police officers wounded on duty”), and the other is the procedure for determining whether the person was wounded on duty

Therefore, whether the degree of injury falls under a disability rating under the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State and the Act on Veterans and Veterans’ Compensation should be determined at the stage of determining disability following the recognition process of injury, and should not be considered in the procedure of determining injury (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Du10295, Nov. 27, 2014).

2. The Defendant issued the instant refusal disposition against the Plaintiff’s application for registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State on the ground that the causal link between the instant wife and the military service cannot be acknowledged. However, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the Plaintiff could not be deemed to have a disability that could be subject to disability rating due to the instant wife on the ground that “the Plaintiff sustained the instant wife while performing his duties or training in the military, and thereby remains 7cm above the head of the instant body.” However, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the Plaintiff could not be deemed to have a disability that could be subject to disability rating due to the instant wife, based on the provision on the “Scare” in [Attachment Table 4] of Article

However, in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the circumstances, such as the fact that there is no disability that can be recognized as a person who has rendered distinguished service to the State or a person eligible for veteran’s compensation, should be determined at the stage of determining disability rating after the wound was recognized, and should not be considered in the procedure of determining injury. Therefore, in this case where the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s application for registration on the ground that proximate causal relation between the wife and the military service was not recognized, the court cannot find the fact that the Plaintiff is not eligible for a disability rating even if the causal relation between the wife and the military service in this case was recognized, and on the ground that the disposition in this case was lawful. Even if the Plaintiff failed to receive a disability rating, the Plaintiff may receive medical support pursuant to Article 73-2 of the Act on the Persons of Distinguished Service to the State, Article 51-2 of the Veterans Compensationer Act, or Article 20 of the Act on the Support of Discharged Discharged Veterans. As such, the recognition of injury in the line of duty alone cannot be deemed lawful.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the instant disposition was lawful on the ground that the Plaintiff was not entitled to a disability rating. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds of illegality of the disposition rejecting persons of distinguished service to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation under the Act on Persons of Distinguished

3. The Plaintiff’s appeal is with merit, and the judgment of the court below is reversed without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Kim Chang-suk (Presiding Justice)