Plaintiff (the number of public-service advocates or higher);

Head of Jinju Veterans Branch Office

July 23, 2010

Changwon District Court Decision 2009Guhap537 Decided December 24, 2009

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's decision on June 20, 2008 equivalent to the rank of the military police in the line of duty rendered against the plaintiff on June 20.

1. Details of the instant disposition

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by considering the whole purport of the pleadings in the descriptions of Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 4, and 8.

A. On December 11, 2006, the Plaintiff was discharged from military service on March 29, 2008, at the Daegu National Armed Forces Hospital, the National Armed Forces Armed Forces C&P hospital, etc. on the ground that he was discharged from military service on February 29, 2008, when he was discharged from military service on the part of the left part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the back part of the front part of the back part of the upper part of the front part of the back part of the front part of the upper part of the upper part of the back part of the upper part

B. On March 3, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of the person who rendered distinguished services to the State on the ground that the instant injury was a wound. On June 16, 2008, the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement deliberated and decided that the instant injury constituted the requirements of the Presidential Decree on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “Act”) under Article 73-2(1) of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State, since the injury in the instant case was concurrently caused by the Plaintiff’s negligence that failed to fulfill his duty of care during the stable games. Accordingly, the Defendant rendered a decision on June 20,

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

(1) Plaintiff

On March 30, 2007, the Plaintiff was a soldier or policeman on duty who had been wounded in the military unit, and was strongly selected and wounded by the left-hand scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic sche

(2) Defendant

Since the difference in this case occurred by the plaintiff's negligence without any inevitable reason, the disposition of this case which decided to be supported by the plaintiff was justifiable.

(b) Fact of recognition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by considering the whole purport of the arguments in the statements in Gap evidence 3, 4, 6, and Eul evidence 2 to 8:

(1) Occurrence of the instant injury and the progress of the examination and treatment

(A) On March 30, 2007, the Plaintiff, under the direction of the watchkeeping officer on duty, 18:25 on March 30, 2007, she saw a stable at a student’s brigade, and went to the left by plucking, plucking up, and plucking down the ground as a plouting, plout, etc., while serving as much as possible the left-hand side of the military unit. The Plaintiff was diagnosed as “a plouts and tensions” at an emergency room of the Daegu National Armed Forces (hereinafter “a plouts”) and received a diagnosis of “a plouts and tensions of plouts” at the National Armed Forces, and returned to the affiliated unit by April 26, 2006.

(B) On April 3, 2007, on the 10th of the same month, on the 20th of the 11st of the same month, the Plaintiff received an oriental medical examination at the port of the 11st of the 11st of the same month, and on May 4, 2007, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “damage to the part of the scopical scopical scopical scopical scopical scopics”

(C) On May 8, 2007, the Plaintiff received outpatient medical treatment from the KCA Daegu Hospital, and was subject to the measures of the left-hand booming on the left-hand side. From May 9, 2007 to June 19, 2007, the Plaintiff provided the KCA Daegu Hospital once a week with the KCA Daegu Hospital. On the other hand, there was a military officer’s opinion that there was no special case as a result of the MRI personnel dosimeter reading conducted by the KCA Hospital as of June 4, 2007, but around June 19, 2007, the Plaintiff received outpatient medical treatment from the KCA Daegu Hospital with the Plaintiff’s appeal for the pain medical treatment.

(D) On June 25, 2007, the Plaintiff was diagnosed by the ○○ Rehabilitation Medical Institute as “satise satise satise satisf and tensions on the left, anti-satisfy fyal fynasat,” and on July 3, 2007, according to the diagnosis that “the left-hand side of the anti-satisfy satfy, and the network for medical treatment and surgery of Non-Party 1 of the Armed Forces of the Armed Forces,” and then hospitalized at the Armed Forces Hospital on the 9th day of the same month and received hospitalized treatment until October 19.

(E) Meanwhile, on August 1, 2007, the Plaintiff was hospitalized for the purpose of diagnosis, examination, and treatment from August 30, 2007 to September 8, 2007, when receiving outpatients from the Aju University Hospital. As a result of the examination of tri-cell nuclear injection, air conditioners, and air conditioners, etc. conducted by the hospital, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “the pain, salute, salute, and salute, other salute, multiple salute, and multiple salute salute salute,” on October 15, 2007.

(2) Compulsory investigation of the Plaintiff and discharge from military service

(A) On December 26, 2007, the senior non-party 2, the commander of the division to which the Plaintiff belongs, was hospitalized in the Armed Forces Hospital on December 27, 2007, by holding a committee for the examination of the committee for the former and the construction works of the Plaintiff, to decide on the instant wounds of the Plaintiff. In order to investigate the duty and to take measures such as discharge from military service, etc., the Plaintiff was hospitalized into the Armed Forces Hospital.

(B) On January 8, 2008 and the 15th day of the same month, the officers of the Armed Forces Department and the Armed Forces Department followed the examination of the duty of the Plaintiff. On the same day, the results of the examination by the Medical Investigation Committee, which was held in the Armed Forces of the Armed Forces, received the examination of physical grade Grade V according to the inspection rules, such as physical examination for physical illness, under the name of diagnosis of the assistant principals and the name of the assistant

(C) Accordingly, the Plaintiff was discharged from military service on February 29, 2008.

(3) Medical opinions

The term “combined Madrome, CRPS” is a kind of chronic pain disease caused by repeated wounds, etc., which is salvating or constant pain on the top of the body. Although it is not yet clearly indicated the cause, it is ordinarily known that it occurred after gal damage caused by external wounds, such as pelfe, image, etc., or through rupture, spine surgery, flafe surgery, cosmetic surgery, cosmetic surgery, and salvology surgery, etc., and it is widely known that it occurred after external treatment, such as dental surgery, flafe-type surgery, cosmetic surgery, and e-mail disorder, e-mail disorder, e-mail disorder, e-mail disorder, e-mail disorder, e-mail disorder, e-mail disorder, e-mail therapy, e-mail therapy, e-mail, e-mail, e-mail therapy, e-mail, e-mail therapy, e-mail, e-mail therapy, e-mail therapy, e-mail therapy, e-mail.

C. Determination

(a) A compensation system for military police officers, etc. corresponding to persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State;

(A) According to Article 4(1)6 of the Act, a soldier discharged from active service or retired from office by suffering from wounds during education and training or in the performance of duty (including illness in the line of duty), who is judged to have suffered physical disability falling within that degree of injury under Article 6-4 of the Act, in a physical examination conducted by the Minister of Patriots and Veterans Affairs, refers to a person of distinguished service to the State who is subject to the application of the Act, with the degree of his disability defined as “military injury in the line of duty”: Provided, That Article 4(6)1 of the Act provides that where a person who meets the requirements for a person of distinguished service to the State under Article 4(1)6 of the Act suffers from wounds due to his intentional or gross negligence without any inevitable reason, he shall be excluded from

(B) Meanwhile, according to Article 73-2(1) of the Act, the Minister of Patriots and Veterans Affairs, among persons who meet the requirements of Article 4(1)6 of the Act and who suffered from wounds due to their own negligence or their family members' negligence without any inevitable reason, excludes persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and their family members registered pursuant to Articles 4(1) and 6, but where a wound was caused due to reasons corresponding to the criteria for official duties prescribed by Presidential Decree, the provisions of Articles 9, 11 through 62 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the wounded and their family members. Accordingly, according to Article 94-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21050, Sept. 26, 2008), the Minister of Patriots and Veterans Affairs provides that "any person who suffered from an accident or disaster among those who met the criteria for official duties, such as workplace exercise, physical training, fraud, etc. under his/her command, where the person was wounded due to his/her own negligence or an accident without any inevitable reason.

(C) Article 73-2(1) of the Act, which is a provision on the compensation for military police, etc. equivalent to a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State, provides that in order to prevent undermining the status of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State by granting the name of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State due to traffic accidents, assault, safety accidents, etc., the person who has been injured due to his/her own negligence or due to concurrent causes due to his/her negligence without any inevitable reason among persons falling under any subparagraph of Article 4(

(2) Whether the Plaintiff constitutes the Plaintiff’s requirements for merit

(A) In light of the aforementioned facts, it is reasonable to view the instant difference as an injury or disease caused by official duty in proximate causal relation with the official duty, in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff was injured by a non-human part-frequency of the left-hand satisfaction in the process of treating the injury after the injury, and (b) the Plaintiff sustained a constant pain on the left-hand satisfaction in the process of treating the injury; and (c) undergo a diagnosis of an anti-anti-cerebral dystrophy in the process of treating the injury; (d) it seems that the cause of the injury seems to have been clearly clarified; and (e) it appears to have been caused by the injury.

(B) However, the following circumstances revealed by the facts acknowledged as above, i.e., (i) putting an injury at any time on the ground of having a stable competition, but a participant in an athletic game shall perform his/her duty of care in preparation for various circumstances that may arise during the game, i.e., a case where a satisfys or conflicts with other persons, and where an injury is sustained due to his/her negligence or his/her negligence, it shall be deemed that he/she sustained injury due to concurrent causes. (ii) The Plaintiff caused the injury due to his/her negligence or his/her negligence. (iii) while his/her unit members and the members of the military unit with his/her unit with his/her unit with his/her unit with his/her unit with his/her unit with his/her unit with his/her unit with his/her unit with his/her / her unit with his/her unit with his/her unit with his/her her plplumbumbbal, which led to strong growth on the left-hand side.

(C) Therefore, inasmuch as the difference in the personality part ionion of this case occurred due to the plaintiff's negligence, it is reasonable to deem that the difference in the personality part ionion of this case constitutes a person of distinguished service to the State, not a person of distinguished service to the State, but a person of distinguished service to the State, in accordance with Article 94-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, since the difference in the personality part ionion of this case occurred

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be just and it shall be dismissed as the plaintiff's appeal. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yoon Don (Presiding Judge)