In cases where a person who has already acquired the status of an adopted child before the abolition of the system of the person who has already rendered distinguished services to the State by the amendment of the Civil Code fails to register as a bereaved family before the enforcement date of the former Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons of Distinguished Services to the State, which was amended by Act No. 4457, Dec.

In light of the purport of the amendment of Article 5(2) of the former Act on Honorable Treatment, etc. of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State (amended by Act No. 4857 of Dec. 31, 1994) and Article 4 of the Addenda (amended by Act No. 4857 of Dec. 27, 1991) of the Act on Honorable Treatment, etc. of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State (amended by Act No. 4857 of Dec. 31, 1994), the amended Act excludes ex post facto and testamentary adopted children included in the previous scope in accordance with the purport of the repeal of the Act on Honorable Treatment, etc. of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State. However, Article 4 of the Addenda of the amended Act on the Honorable Treatment, etc. of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State, even if a person who had already been registered as a bereaved family before the enforcement date of the amended Act on Dec. 27, 1991 has already acquired the status of the adopted.

Article 5 (2) of the former Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (amended by Act No. 4457 of Dec. 27, 1991) (see current Article 5 (2) of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State) Article 5 (2) of the former Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (amended by Act No. 4857 of Dec. 31, 1994) (see current Article 5 (2) of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State), Article 4 of the Addenda (see current Article 5 (2) of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State) Article 867 of the former Civil Act (defused by Act No.

Plaintiff (Attorney Cho Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Msan Veterans Branch Office

Busan High Court Decision 2002Nu3133 delivered on July 4, 2003

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

Article 5(2) of the former Act on the Honorable Treatment, etc. of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State prior to the amendment by Act No. 4457 of Dec. 27, 191 provides that "the former Act on the Honorable Treatment, etc. of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State, which was adopted by a person of distinguished service to the State who has been married without his lineal descendant, shall be regarded as only one child," but Article 5(2) of the former Act on the Honorable Treatment, etc. of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State, which was amended by Act No. 4199 of Jan. 13, 1990, repealed the Civil Act as amended by Act No. 4199 of Dec. 13, 190, Article 5(2) of the former Act on the Honorable Treatment, etc. of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State, which was amended by Act No. 4457 of Dec. 27, 191, shall be construed as only one child who has been adopted a lineal descendant,".

In light of the purport of the amendment of the amended Honorable Treatment Act and the records, the amended Honorable Treatment Act excludes the adopted child and the adopted child who had been included in the scope of the previous bereaved family in line with the purport of the repeal of the ex post facto adopted child and the testamentary adopted child system under the Civil Act. However, Article 4 of the Addenda to the amended Honorable Treatment Act should be considered as the transitional provision in order to protect the rights that have already arisen to the adopted child and others, so even if the adopted child had already acquired the status of the adopted child before the enforcement date of the amended Honorable Treatment Act, even if the adopted child had already acquired the status of the adopted child before the abolition of the adopted child system through the amendment of the Civil Act, it is justifiable to determine that the adopted child cannot become a bereaved family of the person of distinguished service to the State, and there is no violation of the interpretation of Article 5 (2) of the amended Honorable Treatment Act and Article 4 of the Addenda as argued in the Grounds for Appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who is the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jack-dam (Presiding Justice)