Article 8-4 [Attached Table 4] of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of and Support for Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State shall be construed as the method of interpreting the "comprehensive Determination Criteria for Persons of Distinguished Service to the State" in cases where two or more bodies are rated

The scope of delegation under Article 14(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, and each comprehensive determination standard table under [Attachment Table 4] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act does not include a comprehensive determination of disability ratings formally and uniformly according to each two physical disability ratings subject to a comprehensive determination. In light of medical opinions, etc. on the degree of disability in cases where two bodies overlap, it appears that a comprehensive determination was made individually, considering the degree of disability. When the disability ratings are not raised under the comprehensive determination standard table, it is not different from cases where there is no comprehensive determination standard table. The right to receive compensation under the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State is a right granted only by a specific Act, such as other State’s ability to pay national finances and social security, the overall level of social security, the evaluation standard for persons of distinguished service to the State, and thus, it should be interpreted as a comprehensive determination standard under Article 8(2) [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act.

Article 14 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, and Article 8-4 [Attached Table 4]

Constitutional Court en banc Order 2002Hun-Ma90 Decided May 15, 2003 (Hun-Gong81, 495)

[Judgment of the court below]

The head of the Incheon Veterans Branch Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2006Nu18821 decided March 16, 2007

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Comprehensively taking into account the selected evidence, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff was at least Grade 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State on December 31, 1998, and was at least Grade 4 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State on the ground that the Plaintiff was at least Grade 6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State on the ground that it was at least Grade 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State on the ground that it was at least Grade 3 was at least Grade 6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State on the ground that it was at least Grade 6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State on the ground that it was at least Grade 2 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons of Distinguished Service to Grade 3 of the Act.

2. However, it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

Article 14(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Persons of Distinguished Service to the State provides that "the matters concerning the method of determining physical injuries and the criteria for comprehensively assessing wounded persons who have at least two physical injuries in Grade VI shall be prescribed by Ordinance of the Prime Minister." Accordingly, Article 8-4 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Persons of Distinguished Service to the State shall provide that "the criteria for comprehensively assessing wounded persons who have at least Grade VI or higher physical injuries in accordance with Article 14(2) of the Decree shall be as specified in attached Table 4." The criteria for comprehensively assessing wounded persons shall be as specified in attached Table 4." The above "the criteria for comprehensively assessing wounded persons" shall be the criteria for comprehensively assessing two persons whose physical injuries in Grade VI or higher are at least Grade VI, and the criteria for comprehensively assessing two wounded persons shall be set up in 15 for each combination of physical injuries, including the table of the criteria for comprehensively assessing persons who have two different physical injuries in Grade II or higher, while the criteria for comprehensively assessing two disability injuries in Grade II or Grade III shall not be set.

On the other hand, according to each of the above comprehensive determination criteria table, there are cases where the disability rating as a result of the comprehensive determination is indicated, and there are cases where the disability rating as a result of the comprehensive determination is higher than that of each of the two physical parts, and if the disability rating as a result of the comprehensive determination is higher than that of each of the two physical parts, it shall be considered to be a blank, and if it is higher than that of each of the two physical parts, it shall be considered to be higher, and if the disability rating as a result of the comprehensive determination is higher than that of each of the two physical parts, it shall be considered to be higher. On the other hand, even if the disability rating as a result of the comprehensive determination is higher than that of the first two physical parts, it shall be higher from the first to the fifth. On the other hand, if the two physical parts are the same as that of each of the two physical parts, or even if the grade is the same, it shall not be higher as a result of the comprehensive determination.

The scope of delegation under Article 14(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State, and each comprehensive criteria for the determination of persons of distinguished services to the State under [Attachment Table 4] of the above Enforcement Rule, are not determined formally and uniformly according to each disability rating of two physical parts subject to comprehensive determination. In light of medical opinions, etc. on the degree of disability where two physical parts overlap, it appears that a comprehensive determination was made individually, in consideration of the degree of disability, and where the disability rating is not raised under the comprehensive determination criteria table, it is not different from cases where there is no comprehensive determination criteria. The entitlement to compensation under the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State is a right granted only by specific Acts, as in other national compensation or veterans benefits, or social security benefits. The detailed criteria for compensation to be paid by the State to persons of distinguished services to the State are determined based on the nation’s financial capacity and overall level of social security, standards for evaluation of persons of distinguished services to the State, and thus, it is difficult to interpret the comprehensive determination criteria of Grade 2 and Grade 3 (see Constitutional Court Decision 2).

Nevertheless, the lower court: (a) omitted the provision on matters delegated by the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State; and (b) accepted the Plaintiff’s claim based on its premise; (c) the lower court erred by misapprehending the interpretation of the “General Determination Criteria of Persons of Distinguished Services to the State” in Article 8-4 [Attachment 4] of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment; and (d) the allegation in the grounds of appeal

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)