In a case where Gap's father who committed suicide while entering the Navy, filed a lawsuit against the State Eul who committed suicide, received compensation for damages, and filed an application for registration of bereaved family members to the head of the veterans branch office, but the head of the veterans branch office determined Eul as a bereaved family member of Eul's person eligible for veteran's compensation and paid veterans' benefits to Eul, and the head of the veterans branch office decided that the payment of veterans' benefits cannot be received in duplicate under the State Compensation Act, the case holding that the above disposition was unlawful.

In a case where Gap's father, who committed suicide while entering the Navy, filed a lawsuit against the State for compensation for damage, and filed an application for registration of bereaved family members to the head of the agency having jurisdiction over the State, but the head of the agency having jurisdiction over the State's branch determined Eul as a bereaved family member of the person having distinguished service to the State, and paid veterans' benefits to Eul for the reason that "the person having jurisdiction over the State's compensation and the veteran's benefits cannot be received in duplicate," the case holding that the above disposition was unlawful on the ground that the veteran's benefits have social security character, as well as the State's compensation benefits have social security character, and the State's contribution and sacrifice are given honorable treatment for the State's sacrifice and sacrifice, and that the State Compensation Act does not provide that the person having jurisdiction over the compensation for damage is not entitled to a claim for accident compensation or pension for wounds, etc. under other Acts and subordinate statutes, even if Eul received the compensation for damage under the State Compensation Act, since there is no legal basis to suspend or limit the payment of the veteran's benefits.

Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act, Article 2(1)1, Article 7, and Article 68(1)3 of the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation

Plaintiff (Attorney Song-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Commissioner of Gangseo Military Branch Office

March 13, 2015

1. The Defendant’s disposition of suspending payment of veterans’ benefits against the Plaintiff on August 4, 2014 is revoked.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 1, 2002, while entering the Navy, the deceased Nonparty (hereinafter “the deceased”) transferred to the operations headquarters on February 6, 2006 and worked as the watchkeeping on duty. On February 6, 2006, the deceased’s superior imposed excessive duties on the deceased, and the deceased committed abusive and verbal abuse on the new wall on April 9, 2007, and the deceased committed suicide on his own in the nearby park.

B. On March 17, 2008, the Plaintiff, the father of the deceased, filed an application for registration of bereaved family members of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State by asserting that the deceased constituted “persons who died during the performance of their duties” as prescribed by the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “the Act on the Persons of Distinguished Services to the State”). However, on May 14, 2008, the Defendant filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the above disposition. The first instance court rendered a judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim on February 5, 2009, but the appellate court revoked the original judgment on October 6, 2009 and dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim. The appellate court rendered a final judgment against the Plaintiff on January 28, 2010, which became final and conclusive (this Court Decision 2008Gu472, Seoul High Court Decision 2009Nu7167, Supreme Court Decision 2009Du1953).

C. On April 6, 2010, the surviving families of the deceased, including the Plaintiff, filed a lawsuit against the Republic of Korea as Seoul Central District Court 2010Kahap34109 on April 6, 2010. On October 13, 2010, the above court rendered a judgment that “The Defendant Republic of Korea shall pay to the Plaintiff and the mother of the Deceased KRW 45,177,372, and KRW 2 million and damages for delay.” The judgment became final and conclusive around that time. Accordingly, the surviving families of the Deceased received KRW 11,015,460 in total from the Republic of Korea.

D. On July 2, 2012, the Plaintiff again filed an application for registration of bereaved family members of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the Defendant. On August 20, 2013, the Defendant determined the Plaintiff as a bereaved family member of a person eligible for veteran’s compensation under Article 2(1)1 of the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation (hereinafter “the Veterans’ Compensation Act”), on the ground that “the deceased does not meet the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State, but meets the requirements for persons eligible for veteran’s compensation”) and paid veteran’s benefits to the Plaintiff.

E. However, on August 4, 2014, the Defendant rendered a decision to suspend the payment of veterans' benefits to the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Defendant, according to Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act, paid damages under the State Compensation Act and the veterans' benefits paid at the Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs in duplicate, were not received in duplicate, but paid in duplicate to the Plaintiff” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] 1 to 4, and 7 evidence Nos. 1 to 7 (including a Serial number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the parties' assertion

(1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

The proviso to Article 2 of the State Compensation Act does not stipulate that any person who has already received a compensation under the State Compensation Act shall not be entitled to claim a disaster compensation or a pension for wounds, etc. under other Acts and subordinate statutes, and there is no provision to exclude a person who has received a State compensation from a person eligible for veteran's compensation under the Act on Veterans' Compensation, and there is no legal basis to suspend or restrict the payment of veteran's benefits to his/her bereaved family

(2) Summary of the defendant's assertion

The purpose of Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act is to prohibit double compensation for death in relation to the performance of duties by a soldier, etc. Therefore, in the case of bereaved family members, etc. who already received the compensation for damage under the State Compensation Act, the payment of veterans' benefits shall be suspended, and in the case of selecting the veterans' benefits, the payment of veterans' benefits shall be suspended, and in the case of selecting the veterans' benefits, the veterans' benefits shall be paid again from the time when the amount of the compensation already paid is deducted or deducted each month from the amount of the veteran's benefits already paid. If the plaintiff deducts the amount of the compensation already paid from the amount of the veteran's benefits, the amount of the veteran's benefits shall be paid around February 2018. Thus, the instant disposition is lawful.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

(1) Acts and subordinate statutes based on the instant disposition

In addition, on July 9, 2014, prior to the instant disposition, the Defendant issued a prior notice on the suspension of veterans' benefits and the payment of overpaid or erroneously paid veterans' benefits to the Plaintiff on the legal basis of “Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act and Article 75(1)3 of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State Compensation” and issued a prior notice on August 4, 2014 on the ground that “the State Compensation Act and the State Compensation Act cannot be received concurrently pursuant to Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act.” In addition, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the details of the instant disposition; (b) the Plaintiff received veterans' benefits pursuant to the Patriots and Veterans Compensation Act; and (c) the forms and provisions similar to the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State Compensation Act; and (d) the grounds for the instant disposition are determined as the grounds for Article 6(1)3(1) and (2) of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State Compensation Act.

(2) Whether there exists a ground for action as stipulated in the statute based on the instant disposition

(A) The legal nature of damages under the State Compensation Act and compensation under the Patriots and Veterans Compensation Act

The State Compensation Act’s liability under the State Compensation Act provides that the State’s liability for tort liability is a remedy for a right to the illegal exercise of public authority by the State. However, Article 2(1) proviso of the State Compensation Act provides that “if a soldier, etc. was injured in the course of performing his/her duties in relation to combat, etc., he/she or his/her bereaved family may not claim damages under this Act and the Civil Act.”

Meanwhile, Article 7 of the Patriots and Veterans Compensation Act provides that “The Act on Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation who have made a sacrifice or contribution for the State and their bereaved family members or families shall provide reasonable support to ensure their stability of livelihood and improvement of their welfare, and that “The amount of compensation may vary depending on the degree of sacrifice of persons eligible for veteran’s compensation, but may vary in terms of their standard of living, age, etc.” It cannot be denied that the amount of veteran’s benefits is performing functions similar to compensation in that the amount of monetary loss of the victim or his/her bereaved family members who have made a substantial accident is changed. However, in light of the legislative intent of the Act on Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation for Veterans, the aforementioned amount of veteran’s benefits has the character of social security, as well as the amount of honorable treatment for the contribution or sacrifice of the State, and thus, is different from

(B) Relevant laws and regulations and their interpretation

1) Administrative laws and regulations that serve as the basis for an indivative administrative disposition shall be strictly interpreted and applied, and shall not be excessively expanded or analogically interpreted in the direction unfavorable to the other party to the administrative disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du11590, Sept. 20, 2007, etc.).

2) The State Compensation Act provides that a soldier, etc. is entitled to receive a disaster compensation or a pension for wounds pursuant to other Acts and subordinate statutes, if he/she was injured on duty, he/she may not claim the State compensation separately. On the other hand, the State Compensation Act does not provide that accident compensation or a pension for wounds under other Acts and subordinate statutes cannot be claimed if he/she was already paid the damages under the State Compensation Act, and there is no ground to regard claims under other

In addition, Article 11(1) of the Patriots and Veterans Compensation Act provides that "the compensation shall be paid to the injured and wounded veterans, etc.: Provided, That the same shall not apply to the persons excluded from the payment of compensation under this Act or other Acts." However, there is no provision that the State Compensation Act excludes the payment of compensation under the State Compensation Act, and as seen earlier, the State Compensation Act cannot be deemed as prohibiting the payment of compensation to the person who has already received the State compensation. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the compensation first received under the State Compensation Act falls under the proviso of the above provision.

3) Furthermore, Article 22(1) of the Patriots and Veterans Compensation Act provides that “The right to receive veterans’ benefits shall not be transferred or seized, and shall not be offered as a security.” This is intended to enhance the stability and welfare of persons eligible for veteran’s compensation and to guarantee their decent life. Thus, even if the Republic of Korea has a claim for the return of damages paid to the Plaintiff, the payment of veteran’s benefits under the Act on Veterans’ Compensation and Compensation cannot be suspended or the amount of veteran’s benefits already paid cannot be recovered by exercising such right by realizing the legislative intent under the proviso to Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act.

(C) Sub-decisions

Therefore, even if the Plaintiff received compensation under the State Compensation Act, the instant disposition that suspended the payment of the Plaintiff’s veterans’ benefits on the ground that the Defendant did not have any legal basis for suspending or restricting the payment of compensation under the Patriots and Veterans Compensation Act, and on a different premise, erroneously paid the Plaintiff the amount of compensation and the amount of veterans’ benefits.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment] Relevant Statutes: omitted

Judges Kim Jong-dae (Presiding Judge) Suspension