2013Guhap360 on duty or on duty, revocation of disposition

A person shall be appointed.

The Commissioner of Busan Regional Veterans Administration

June 28, 2013

August 23, 2013

1. On November 15, 2012, the Defendant’s disposition of a soldier or policeman wounded on duty against the Plaintiff was revoked.

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

The order is as set forth in the text.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 17, 2010, the Plaintiff entered the Army and served as a major institutional soldier at the headquarters of the 1101 Military Service Corps, and was discharged from military service on May 23, 201.

나. 원고는 2012. 4. 1. 중대단결활동의 일환으로 시행된 축구경기에 공격수로 참가하였다. 위 축구경기 중 원고 편 선수가 상대방 진영에 있던 원고에게 공을 길게 패스하였고, 원고는 공을 잡기 위하여 공이 떨어지는 방향으로 달려갔는데, 원고가 미처 공을 잡기 전에 원고로부터 1 ~ 2m 거리에 있던 상대편 수비수가 허공에 떠 있던 공을 원고의 얼굴 쪽으로 그대로 걷어찼고, 위 공은 원고의 왼쪽 눈 부위를 강타하였다 ( 이하 ' 이 사건 사고 ' 라 한다 ) ,

C. On May 10, 2012, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “in the face to the KF Capital Hospital,” “in the face of the instant accident,” the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “in the face to the KF Capital Hospital.” On May 10, 2012, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “in the face of an infectious disease (hereinafter “the instant difference”). The Plaintiff was diagnosed as “in the face of an infectious disease”, “in the face of an infectious disease (hereinafter “the instant difference”).

D. On June 26, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person who rendered distinguished service to the Defendant on the ground that he/she was injured in the instant accident, and as a result of the deliberation of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement on October 10, 2012, “the result of the deliberation of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement” was judged to be wounded in performing official duties. However, without any inevitable reason, it was determined that the Plaintiff’s negligence, which was caused by the Plaintiff’s failure to perform his/her duty of care, constituted a soldier or policeman on duty, and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff on November 15, 2012 that the Plaintiff fell under the requirements for subsidization of a soldier or policeman on duty, on the grounds as the result of

[Ground of Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence No. 1 (including branch numbers), witness B's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

이 사건 사고는 공격수로 상대방 진영에 있는 원고에게 길게 패스된 공을 상대편 수비수가 공이 아직 땅에 떨어지지 않은 상태에서 걷어내기 위하여 강하게 찼고, 그 공이 원고의 얼굴을 맞춘 사건으로서, 원고와 상대편 수비수와의 간격이 약 1 ~ 2m 정도로 매우 가까웠을 뿐만 아니라 상대편 수비수가 공을 걷어찬 행위가 아주 순간적으로 이루어졌다는 점에서, 원고가 공을 피하는 것은 불가능하였다고 보인다. 이와 같은 사고 경위에 비추어 볼 때 원고로서는 아무리 주의를 기울여도 이 사건 사고를 예견 · 회피하기 어려웠다고 봄이 상당하므로, 원고는 과실 없이 불가피한 사유로 이 사건 상이를 입었다고 할 것이다. 결국 이와 다른 전제에 선 피고의 이 사건 처분은 위법하다 .

B. Determination

Article 4(1)6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State") provides that a soldier, police officer, or fire-fighting officer who was discharged from military service or retired from military service after having been wounded in the course of performing his/her duties or education and training, whose degree of disability has been determined in the physical examination conducted by the Minister of Patriots and Veterans Affairs,

19. Article 73-2 (1) of the former Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State (amended by Act No. 11041, Jun. 27, 2012; hereinafter referred to as the "former Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State") provides that Article 94-3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State (amended by Presidential Decree No. 11041; hereinafter referred to as the "Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State") shall exclude a wounded person who meets the requirements under Article 4 (1) 6 of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State, who was wounded due to concurrent reasons for his/her own negligence or his/her own negligence without any inevitable reasons, and Articles 9 and 11 through 62 of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State shall apply mutatis mutandis where he/she was wounded or wounded due to reasons corresponding to the criteria for the standards prescribed by Presidential Decree.

As to the instant case, it seems difficult for the other players to anticipate the possibility of their face, and the distance between the Plaintiff and the other players was inevitably about 1 to 2 meters, and the other players were forced to get their body safe protection by predicting such various risks in advance. However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned facts and the evidence are acknowledged as follows. At the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff was in a situation where the other players were able to get their body unsatisfed, and thus, it seems difficult for the other players at the time of the instant accident to anticipate the possibility of their satisfeing the Plaintiff’s face. Thus, it was inevitable for the Plaintiff and the other players to get their satisfeed and satisfe at the time of the instant accident to get their own satisfe and satched, and the Plaintiff’s satisfe at the time of the instant accident to get their body satisfe and satched.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.

Judge Park Jong-chul, Counsel for the judge

Judge Doo

Judges Senior Superintendent and Senior Superintendent