In a case where a soldier Gap, who had worked as a head of a transportation support team at the Air Force Headquarters, felled to the right generated during the process of inspecting equipment for him/her and was discharged from military service by causing damage, etc., and applied for registration of persons of distinguished service to the State, and the head of a Special Self-Governing Province determined that he/she constitutes a person eligible for distinguished service to the State under the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State, etc., the case holding that

In a case where a soldier Gap, who worked as a head of the transportation support team at the Air Force Headquarters, was killed or wounded in an accident or disaster that occurred in the course of the inspection of equipment for the owner, etc., and was killed or wounded in the course of the inspection of equipment for the owner, etc., and thereafter filed an application for registration of persons of distinguished service to the State. In a case where the head of the Special Self-Governing Province Veterans Administration determined that he constitutes a person of distinguished service to the State under the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, since he was injured in the course of performing duties not directly related to the protection of the lives and property of the people, the case held that Article 3(1)4 [Attachment Table 1] 2-1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State determined the criteria and scope of a soldier or policeman, and determined that the person was killed or wounded in the course of the maintenance of equipment for the owner, etc.

Article 4(1)6 and (2) of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of and Support for Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State, Article 3(1)4 [Attached Table 1] 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State, Article 2(1)2 and (2) of the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation, Article 2(1)1 [Attached Table 1] 1 and 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act

Plaintiff

Commissioner of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province

July 15, 2015

1. The Defendant’s decision that rendered distinguished service to the State on January 7, 2015 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 1, 1980, the Plaintiff entered the Air Force and was discharged from military service on October 1, 1980, and was discharged from military service on October 31, 2013.

B. On March 21, 201, the Plaintiff, the head of the △△△△△ Group △△△△△ Group, the Air Force Headquarters Head of the Gun Command, discovered that the equipment inspection of the vehicle for the said vehicle (6,000 tons; hereinafter “the instant vehicle”) was being conducted on March 21, 201, and found that the engine errors and hydrotensions were under way in the said vehicle, and that the engine errors and hydrotensions were under way by inserting the instant vehicle into another forking (11,000 tons). In the process, when another forking vehicle (11,000 tons) went about about about 20 centimeters, the Plaintiff fell down with the right side of the Plaintiff, etc. (hereinafter “the instant accident”).

C. The plaintiff was under a rupture surgery because of mination of the boness on the right edge of the instant accident, but the plaintiff was under a rupture surgery due to ruptures Nos. 2, 4, and 5, and the plaintiff was discharged from military service.

D. The Plaintiff filed an application for registration on the ground that the instant accident constituted a soldier or policeman wounded on duty as prescribed by Article 4(1)6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State”), on the ground that the Plaintiff was injured by damage to the right-side voltage, the right-side 1, 3, 4, 5 parts of the pelvis and the pelvis 2, 2, and 3 parts of the pelvis.

E. On May 20, 2014, based on the result of the 1116 Veterans' Council on May 20, 2014, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff was injured during ordinary work, and determined on May 29, 2014, that the Plaintiff was not a person of distinguished service to the State under Article 4(1)6 of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State, but constitutes a person eligible for veteran's compensation under Article 2(1)2(b) of the Act on Support for Persons of Distinguished Service to the State (hereinafter "Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State").

F. The Plaintiff filed an objection on June 9, 2014. However, the Defendant decided at the 187 Veterans Examination Council on August 6, 2014 and the 318 Veterans Examination Council on December 24, 2014 as the same conclusion as before for the following reasons. On January 7, 2015, the Plaintiff did not constitute a person of distinguished service to the State under Article 4(1)6 of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State, but determined that the Plaintiff constitutes a person of distinguished service to the State under Article 2(1)2 of the Veterans Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

According to the ○○○ Plaintiff’s beds and the certificate of illness included in the main text, it is confirmed that the injury was caused by the falling on the part of the Plaintiff during the storage work and the inspection of equipment. This is not caused by direct maintenance, distribution, transportation, and management of munitions such as aircraft, etc. using a knife vehicle, but it is confirmed that the injury was incurred during a proper loading and unloading work for transport support, and there is no reason to regard simple maintenance work as an act directly related to the national defense, security, or the protection of the lives and property of the people. In addition, ○○ is not a vehicle driving directly by the Plaintiff, but it is confirmed that the Plaintiff was injured while driving, supervising, and leading the Plaintiff’s right of the Plaintiff in the front while driving, and the Plaintiff paid attention, it cannot be seen as an injury that could have been avoided if the Plaintiff fell under an ordinary injury and constitutes a dangerous duty. Comprehensively taking account of this, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s injury was directly related to the national defense, security, or education and training related to the State’s duty.

[Basis] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1-1 to 3, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant accident caused by the Plaintiff’s injury occurred during the course of the maintenance of the vehicles for which they were injured. Therefore, the Plaintiff was discharged from military service by suffering injuries directly related to the national defense and security, or the protection of the lives and property of the people, and thus constitutes a person of distinguished service to the State. Nevertheless, the instant disposition that the Plaintiff decided as a person of distinguished service to the State

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Facts of recognition

1) On March 21, 201, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as a voltage damage accompanied by the right-hand joints, and was diagnosed as a pressure damage, including the cutting condition of the sloping of the double-sloping joints, the right-side 1, 3, 4, and 5 of April 5, 201, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as a pressure damage of the shot, including the cutting condition of the sloping joints, the upper part of the sloping joints, the upper part of which, and the upper part of the sloping joints and the upper part of which, accordingly, was conducted less than 2, 4, and 5 of the same day.

2) On May 2, 2011, the Plaintiff was hospitalized in the Armed Forces Daegu Hospital due to the above symptoms, and was diagnosed by the said hospital that continuous creative management and rehabilitation is required.

3) Since then, the Plaintiff was hospitalized at the Jeju University Hospital on May 4, 2011 and May 11, 2011, and received treatment for an open space after receiving an indeption surgery on May 31, 201, as well as an indeption surgery on the partial indeption surgery, and was hospitalized at the Armed Forces Daegu Hospital on June 20, 201, and was in stability. The Plaintiff was discharged from the Armed Forces Hospital on November 2, 2011.

4) On May 4, 201, the Plaintiff was judged on May 4, 201 on the ground of the occurrence and circumstance of the following:

At around 09:30 on March 21, 201, the table included in the main text, Nonparty 1 attempted to check the instant vehicle after air transport loading and unloading equipment inspection and replacement of air transport loading and unloading equipment, and to exchange engine errors for the purpose of air transport equipment inspection, but the Plaintiff determined that the maintenance Dok cannot be set up, and re-entered to the storage of the equipment, and that the engine dump and hydrotension oil was discovered. Accordingly, the driver was able to check the dump of the instant vehicle with another driver, and the driver was 20 centimeters of the instant vehicle, and the driver was dumped to the right side of the Plaintiff’s right side while driving and supervising operation at the front, and the driver was diagnosed on January 24, 201, but the driver was diagnosed on May 14, 201, and then fell to the upper wheel of the above wheel of the Plaintiff’s right side.

5) According to the patient information survey prepared by the physician of the Armed Forces Daegu Hospital on June 20, 201, the Plaintiff felled on March 21, 2011, and the right light was transferred to Jeju University Hospital by the 119 rescue unit, and received a contact operation under the 119 rescue unit, on the ground that the 2, 4, and 5 Gain’s organization was collapseed and the 4,5 Gain cut.

6) According to the disability diagnosis written by the doctor of Jeju University Hospital on June 14, 2012, according to the disability diagnosis written by the doctor of Jeju University Hospital on June 14, 2012, as of June 14, 2012, the Plaintiff is in a state of cutting from the middle satisfaction-alleys of the 2, 4, and 5 arms and legs, 15 degrees in the middle satisfaction of the 1st page, 0 degrees in the earth between the earth, and 0 degrees in the middle satisfaction of the 3 pages in the right side.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2-1 to 4, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1-1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) The statutory framework and details of the Acts and subordinate statutes pertaining to veterans affairs

A) The Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State and the Act on Veterans and Veterans Compensation enacted or enacted as of September 15, 201 and enforced as of July 1, 2012, the requirements of persons of distinguished service to the State were changed. In other words, unlike the previous revision or enactment, a soldier discharged from military service by suffering from wounds (including diseases in official duties) among “performance of duties, education and training directly related to national defense, security, or the protection of the lives and property of the people” as a soldier shall be honored as a person of distinguished service to the State (military injury) and a person discharged from military service by suffering from wounds among “duty or education and training not directly related to national defense and security or the protection of the lives and property of the people” shall be supported as a person eligible for veteran

B) In this case, the term “an injury during education and training” refers to a soldier or police officer’s injury or disease during education and training or during the performance of duty. Thus, in order to become different as prescribed by the above provision, there is a proximate causal relation between the education and training or performance of duty and the injury or disease, and the causal relation exists even in the case where the existing disease overlaps with the course or group due to education and training or performance of duty and the injury or disease. However, the causal relation between the education and training or performance of duty and the injury or disease should be proved by the party asserting it (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Du3615, Jul. 29, 2005, etc.).

2) Criteria for determining persons who rendered distinguished services to soldiers and police officers

A) Article 4(1) of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State provides that any of the following persons who have rendered distinguished service to the State, their bereaved family members, or their families shall receive honorable treatment under this Act, and subparagraph 6 of the same Article provides that “military, police, or fire-fighting officials who were wounded (including diseases) in the performance of their duties or education and training directly related to national defense and security, or the protection of the lives and property of the people, who were discharged from military service or retired from office after having been wounded (including diseases).” Furthermore, Article 4(2) provides that the detailed criteria and scope of determining whether a person falls under the requirements for a person of distinguished service to the State under Article 1(6) shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree by comprehensively taking into account the scope of performance of duties, such as combat or other similar duties, the degree of the performance of duties or education and training, and the protection of the lives and property of the State or the existence and degree of their negligence.

Accordingly, Article 3(1)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State stipulates that a person who has been killed or wounded (including a person who has died of a disease or has died of a disease due to his/her duties directly related to the national defense or security, or the protection of the lives and property of the people) is wounded in the performance of duties or education and training, which are directly related to the national defense or security, or the protection of the lives and property of the people. Article 3(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State provides that a person who has been killed or wounded (including a person who has been killed or died of a disease due to his/her duties or education and training, which are directly related to the protection of the lives and property of the people) shall be subject to any of the following duties (including acts of preparation or rearrangement directly related thereto, moving to a destination to perform his/her duties, or moving to a military unit after completion of his/her duties), and (a) provides that a person who has died or has been killed in a disaster or disaster again (including civilian employees in the military patrol, rescue, rescue, rescue, p.

B) On the other hand, Article 2(1)2 of the Patriots and Veterans Compensation Act provides that a soldier, police officer, or fire-fighting officer, who was discharged from military service or retired from military service by suffering from wounds in the performance of duties or education and training not directly related to national defense and security, or the protection of the lives and property of the people (including diseases), while providing for the detailed criteria for whether a soldier, police officer, or fire-fighting officer meets the requirements for persons eligible

Accordingly, Article 2 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Veterans and Compensation for Persons of Distinguished Services to the State stipulates that a person killed or wounded shall be a deceased or wounded person falling under any of subparagraphs 1 through 15 of attached Table 1, and in addition, [Attachment Table 1] provides that "any person killed or wounded due to an accident or disaster during the performance of duties other than the performance of duties (including moving to a destination or moving to a subordinate unit, workplace, etc. after the completion of his/her duties) under subparagraph 2-2-1 through 2-8 of attached Table 1 [Attachment Table 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State (including moving to a destination or moving to a subordinate unit, workplace, etc. after the completion of his/her duties)" (Article 2 (1) 1), and the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State [Attachment Table 1] 2-1 through 2-8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State."

3) In light of the regulatory structure and content of such relevant statutes, in order for the Plaintiff to be recognized as a soldier or policeman wounded on duty as a soldier or policeman rendering distinguished service to the State, it should be clear whether the instant accident occurred directly due to the maintenance, distribution, transportation, and management of munitions, such as equipment, materials, and other similar acts

4) The circumstances revealed in the above basic facts and facts are as follows.

① Article 3(1)4 [Attachment 1] 2-1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Persons of Distinguished Services to the State set the criteria and scope of soldiers and police officers, and set forth the criteria and scope of the repair, distribution, transportation, and management of munitions, such as equipment, goods, etc., and other similar activities, and does not limit to the accidents or disasters that occurred while directly repairing, distributing, transporting, and managing munitions. In other words, if the maintenance, distribution, transportation, and management of munitions or other similar activities are followed by an accident or disaster without involvement of any other cause, they shall be deemed to meet the above requirements, and there is no need to limit them to those acts directly related to the munitions themselves, as alleged by the Defendant.

The instant accident, which was caused by the Plaintiff, is a fall in the Plaintiff’s development leading and guiding the operation of the said vehicle while taking overall charge of the maintenance process at the front section, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that the said requirements are satisfied, as the Plaintiff was injured.

② Even if the above requirement is directly maintained, supplied, transported, and managed by the Defendant, as alleged by the Defendant, it falls under the possession of the instant vehicle. It appears that the instant vehicle held by the Defendant does not fall under the munitions as the loading and unloading work equipment for transport support. However, there is no basis to interpret the foregoing.

③ The Defendant asserts that the maintenance and checkup of the instant car does not constitute a position directly related to the national defense and security or the protection of the lives and property of the people. However, the maintenance of the said car is directly necessary for the carriage of air transport goods and other military supplies, and the act of maintenance is naturally included in the scope of the Plaintiff’s duties, and as long as the Plaintiff was involved in an accident during the performance of his duties within the scope of his duties, the maintenance and checkup of the said car is directly related to the national defense and security or the protection of the lives and property of the people.

If the defendant directly maintains, distributes, transports, and manages munitions, such as aircraft, etc., the above requirements are met, while the shop maintenance work is deemed not to meet the above requirements, there is a high possibility of a problem of equity between persons entitled to veterans benefits, since the scope of duties that can be regarded as persons of distinguished service to the State is significantly changed according to the assigned duties and the subject of performing duties. This is contrary to the legislative purpose of the Framework Act on Veterans and Veterans Affairs, the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State

④ The Defendant asserts to the effect that the instant accident does not constitute an ordinary work for the recognition of a person of distinguished service as a person of distinguished service because the Plaintiff was under normal work. However, the meaning and scope of “ordinary work” asserted by the Defendant is unclear. Furthermore, according to the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State as seen earlier, whether a person of distinguished service to the State constitutes a person of distinguished service should be determined on the basis of whether the person’s work is directly related to the national defense and security,

⑤ Furthermore, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the instant accident could have been avoided by the Plaintiff’s exercise of due care, and thus the Plaintiff’s negligence was involved, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot be recognized as a person of distinguished service to the State. However, in the event that the instant accident occurred on the forepeak, and it was impossible to fix the said forepeak, it appears that the instant forepeak was an unexpected accident that could not be predicted as the Plaintiff, and that the instant forepeak was crashed in order to verify the forepeak, and that there was negligence on the part of the Plaintiff in the instant accident. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff was negligent in the course of the instant accident.

5) In full view of the above circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s injury was incurred in the course of performing duties or education and training directly related to the national defense and security, or the protection of the lives and property of the people, and therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff discharged from the military as a soldier or policeman on duty (However, if the Plaintiff is finally registered as a person of distinguished service to the State, it shall be determined according to the disability rating determined in the physical examination conducted by the Minister of Patriots and Veterans Affairs, which falls

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment] Relevant Statutes: omitted

Judges Dog-sung (Presiding Judge) Complaint

1) In relation to the decision of May 29, 2014 and the decision of January 7, 2015 rendered by the Defendant, which constitutes an administrative disposition. However, Article 74-18(1) of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State may file an objection with the Minister of Patriots and Veterans in relation to Article 74-5(1)1 of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State (Article 3 subparag. 2 of the Framework Act on Veterans Affairs). In such cases, a person who has filed an objection may file an administrative appeal under the Administrative Appeals Act regardless of such objection with the Minister of Patriots and Veterans Affairs, and a person notified of the result thereof may file an administrative appeal under the Administrative Appeals Act within 90 days from the date he/she is notified of such objection. In full view of the aforementioned regulatory structure and content, an administrative appeal under the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State is separate from the administrative appeal under the Administrative Appeals Act, and thus, constitutes an internal decision of an administrative agency, independent decision of the Plaintiff, and thus, constitutes an independent administrative disposition.