[1] The meaning of "direct cause relationship" necessary for the recognition as a soldier or policeman on duty pursuant to Article 3 (1) 3 [Attachment 1] 2-1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service

[2] Whether the revocation of a non-existence of a person who rendered distinguished service to the State and a non-existence of a person eligible for veteran's compensation is in a relationship that is incompatible with that of a person who rendered distinguished service to the State at the same time (affirmative), and whether the revocation of a non-existence of a person who rendered distinguished service to the State is in a primary

[1] Article 4 (1) 5 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State; Article 3 (1) 3 [Attachment 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; Article 2 [Attachment 1] 1 and 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation / [2] Articles 4 and 6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc.

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2014Du42896 Decided August 18, 2016 (Gong2016Ha, 1364) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2015Du4694 Decided July 27, 2016 (Gong2016Ha, 1263), Supreme Court Decision 2015Du48570 Decided August 17, 2016

Plaintiff (Attorney Shin-sung et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

The head of Gwangju Regional Veterans Administration

Gwangju High Court Decision 2014Nu5513 decided January 22, 2015

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Determination on the grounds of appeal on the part concerning the claim for revocation of a disposition that rendered distinguished service to the State

(1) The Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (amended by Act No. 11041, Sept. 15, 201; hereinafter “the Act”) was enacted with the aim of promoting their livelihood stability and improving welfare and contributing to encouraging citizens’ patriotism by properly treating and supporting persons of distinguished services to the State who have made sacrifice or contributions to the State, their bereaved families, or their families. The Act on the Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation (amended by Act No. 11042, Sept. 15, 201; hereinafter “the Act”) was enacted with the aim of contributing to the stabilization of their livelihood and the improvement of their welfare by providing appropriate support to persons eligible for veteran’s compensation, their bereaved families, or their families. The purpose of division is to ensure that persons who are obliged to receive honorable treatment from the people among the persons eligible for veteran’s compensation are persons of distinguished services to the State, while those who merely need compensation are divided into persons eligible for veteran’s compensation.

Meanwhile, Article 4 (1) of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State stipulates the requirements of persons of distinguished service to the State applicable to the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to National and Social Development (No. 18) through special contributors to national and social development (No. 3), among which they are classified into soldiers and policemen (No. 4), soldiers and policemen killed or wounded in action (No. 5), soldiers and policemen killed or wounded in action (No. 6), and soldiers and policemen on duty (no. 6). The soldier or police officers killed or wounded in action must satisfy the requirements of “persons who died (including persons who died of disease) in the course of performing their duties or education and training directly related to national defense and security or the protection of people’s lives and property (hereinafter “national defense and security or protection of people’s lives and property”).

Article 4(2) of the Act on the Persons of Distinguished Service to the State provides for the criteria and scope of persons of distinguished service to the State (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State”) to be determined by the Presidential Decree, comprehensively taking into account the following: “The scope of persons of distinguished service to the State or the performance of their duties corresponding thereto (No. 1); “the extent of the performance of duties or education and training, and the protection of the lives and property of the State (including diseases)” and “the circumstance of death or injury (including diseases) and whether or not there were negligence.” Each subparagraph of Article 3(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Persons of Distinguished Service to the State”) prescribed the criteria and scope of the requirements for persons of distinguished service to the State, among which subparagraph 3, [Attachment 1] (hereinafter “the scope of persons who died or were directly related to the performance of duties of the State’s police officers or police officers killed and wounded.”

As such, the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State stipulates that “The former Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State shall have a direct relation to the protection of the State, etc.” as the requirement for performance of duties or education and training, unlike the provisions of the former Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State, which does not expressly stipulate the performance of duties or education and training in relation to persons of distinguished service to the State recognized as persons of distinguished service to the State. In this regard, the nature of duties

In addition, the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State requires that a direct causal relation exists between the performance of duties or education and training and the accident or accident. In addition to the language and text of the provision above, the criteria and scope of the requirements of persons of distinguished services to the State should be determined by comprehensively taking into account “the degree of relationship between performance of duties or education and training and national defense and security, or the protection of the lives and property of the people,” and “the circumstances where death or injury (including illness) occurred and the existence and degree of negligence of the persons of distinguished services to the State” in accordance with the delegation of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State. The Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State requires that a person who died from an accident or accident directly related to the national defense, etc. as provided in subparagraph 2-1(b) of Table 2-1 of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State be deemed as having a direct causal relation between the occurrence or aggravation of duties and the establishment of education and training or other accident.”

(2) In full view of the evidence as indicated in the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the following facts: (a) around July 15, 1976, the deceased entered the police station’s ○○○ combat police station on September 25, 1976; (b) it was posted to the coast guard (hereinafter “the beginning of this case”) located in the Jeonnam-gun Special Metropolitan Police Agency’s ( Address omitted); and (c) on November 20, 1976, the deceased was working on the new wall dives, Ma1 guns from the inner base of the military unit, and caused suicide to the deceased’s own head with a positive and positive character; and (d) the deceased did not suffer from mental illness; and (b) it was hard to say that the first time of the first time of the death of the deceased was in accordance with the so-called “mark,” and that it was unlawful for Nonparty 2 to have expressed his motive for the deceased to engage in singing, singinginginginginging, etc., of the deceased.

(3) However, among the judgment of the court below, it is difficult to accept the part on the disposition of non-qualified persons who rendered distinguished services to the State for the following reasons.

It may be deemed that the deceased’s failure to perform his duty at the time of his suicide falls under “duty directly related to the national defense, etc.” as a kind of “security work” as prescribed in subparagraph 2-1(b) of the attached Table 2-1 of this case. However, solely on the ground that the deceased committed suicide during his/her service in time, the “duty directly related to the national defense, etc.” cannot be deemed as a direct cause for the deceased’s death. Rather, even according to the judgment of the court below, the direct cause of the deceased’s suicide is a stress, etc. caused by the general combat police force service, mountain, and the old and harsh acts associated therewith, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the “Duty directly related to the national defense, etc.” directly caused “duty directly related to the national defense, etc.” and thus, it cannot be deemed that the “duty directly related to the national defense, etc.” constitutes an accident or accident caused by the death.

Therefore, apart from the fact that there is room to acknowledge a proximate causal relationship between the deceased’s death and the general combat police compounds, it is difficult to view that the deceased’s performance of duties directly related to the national defense, etc. as defined in Article 2-1 of the attached Table 2-1 is a deceased person who died from an accident or disaster and who died on duty as defined in Article 4(1)5 of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services

(4) Nevertheless, under different premise, the lower court determined that the deceased satisfied the requirements of a person of distinguished service to the State on the ground that proximate causal relation is acknowledged between the deceased’s death and force or between his combat police compounds service and cruel act, etc.

2. Ex officio determination as to a claim for revocation of a disposition for revocation of a person eligible for veteran's compensation;

(1) The lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, revoked both dispositions on the instant lawsuit claiming revocation of the disposition rendered in favor of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State and revocation of the disposition rendered in favor of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State in the form of simple combination.

(2) The Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State and the Act on Veterans and Veterans and Compensation Therefor: (a) a person who was killed or wounded in the course of performing duties or education and training directly related to the national defense, etc. based on the nature of such education and training or duty; (b) a person who was killed or wounded in the course of performing duties or education and training not directly related to the national defense, etc.,

As can be seen, the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State and the Act on Veterans and Veterans Compensation (hereinafter “Act”) distinguish between persons who have rendered distinguished service to the State and persons who have rendered distinguished service to the State, depending on whether the performance of duties or education and training that caused death or injury is directly related to the national defense, etc.

(3) Whether the form of consolidation constitutes simple consolidation or the primary and preliminary consolidation ought to be determined on the basis of the nature of the claim, rather than the intent of the relevant party (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da96868, May 29, 2014). Therefore, even if the Plaintiff claims two claims in a simple and preliminary relationship, the lower court should first have determined whether the Plaintiff’s primary and preliminary claim satisfies the statutory requirements, such as whether the performance of duties or education and training directly related to the protection of the State, etc. of the person who has rendered distinguished service to the State has been “direct cause” in relation to the claim for revocation of the non-determination of a person who has rendered distinguished service to the State, based on the primary and preliminary claim, and should have determined whether the claim for revocation of the non-determination of the person who has rendered distinguished service

Nevertheless, the lower court deemed the combination form of the instant case as simple combination and accepted both incompatible claims. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the nature of a claim for revocation of a non-specific disposition rendered by a person of distinguished service to the State and a combination of claims for revocation of a non-specific disposition rendered by a person of distinguished service to the State, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. As seen earlier, inasmuch as it accepted the grounds of appeal as to the claim for revocation of a non-specific disposition rendered by a person of distinguished service to the State and reversed this part, the part regarding the

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)