Article 8-3 [Attachment 4] of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State, the meaning of "a person who clearly shows efficiencies in the examination of X-ray, etc., regardless of appropriate treatment, whose efficencies after the efficencies due to efficencies from 8.b. to 8122" and the meaning of "a person whose efficencies in light of efficencies

In full view of the contents, structure, and purport of Article 6-4 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, Article 14 (2), (3) [Attachment Table 3] of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, and Article 8-3 [Attachment Table 4] of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, the term “persons who clearly show the efficiity after the efficiencies from the examination of X-ray, etc., regardless of appropriate treatment” (type 3), the term “persons whose efficiity after the efficiation from the efficiation test is clearly visible and whose efficism is considerably limited from the efficiated effic personality test” (type 1/100 of the efficienic personality disorder).

Article 6-4 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, Article 14 (2), (3) [Attachment Table 3] of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, Article 8-3 [Attachment

Supreme Court Decision 2016Du33186 Decided June 10, 2016 (Gong2016Ha, 941)

Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Jae-ju, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Commissioner of Busan Regional Veterans Administration

Busan High Court Decision 2015Nu23311 decided February 3, 2017

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 6-4 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “Act”) provides that “The disability rating of persons subject to physical examinations under Article 6-3(1) shall be determined according to the degree of their disability by classifying them into Grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 (the first sentence of paragraph (1)); the criteria for the disability rating shall be determined by comprehensively considering the degree of their disability and the degree of their social restrictions (Paragraph (2)); the classification and determination of the disability rating shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree (Paragraph (3)).

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 (hereinafter “Decree”) provides that “The matters concerning the method of determining physical injuries and the method of measuring physical disability disorders shall be prescribed by Ordinance of the Prime Minister.” Article 14(3) provides that “The classification of disability ratings according to the degree of physical injuries shall be as specified in attached Table 3.” In addition, attached Table 3 provides that “a person who has disabilityed the function of the Do in one section among the three sections of the three sections of Han Between the classification table of disability ratings in attached Table 7 and 8122.”

Meanwhile, Article 8-3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, etc. (hereinafter “Enforcement Rule”) provides that “The determination of a disability rating for physical injury according to Article 14(2) of the Decree shall be in accordance with the criteria prescribed in attached Table 4,” and the [Attachment Table 4] provision provides that “persons whose physical disability rating is restricted by at least 1/4 of the physical disability rating,” and “persons whose physical disability area is restricted by at least 1/4,” and “persons whose physical disability area is restricted by at least 10 millimeters (m), regardless of appropriate treatment),” and “persons whose physical injury from damage to a pel ray is clearly visible from a prosecutor, such as X-ray photographing” (hereinafter “type 1, 2, and 3”) shall be respectively prescribed.

In full view of the contents, structure, and purport of the relevant laws and regulations, the type No. 3 prescribed in the Enforcement Rule [Attachment Table 4] shall be deemed to mean “a person with a disability in light of the level required in the category No. 1 or No. 2 in light of the following reasons: (a) the change after credit due to flag damage, regardless of appropriate treatment, shows a emulsion in the examination of X-ray shooting, etc.; and (b) thereby, a person with a disability in light of the degree of flaging skills (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Du33186, Jun. 10, 2016).”

A. As seen earlier, the provisions of the Enforcement Rule on the criteria for determining disability ratings are based on the specific re-delegations prescribed in the above Decree, and cannot be seen as deviating from the law or the delegation system of the Enforcement Decree, and cannot be viewed as merely an example (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du1092, Apr. 28, 2011). Accordingly, the types 1, 2, and 3, which are the disability contents of Class 7 8122 among the Enforcement Rule [Attachment 4], are determined as follows: “A person who has a functional disorder in the light of the three major sections of one bridge” under the Enforcement Rule [Attachment 4], namely, class 7 8122 of class 7 8122, which is prescribed in the Enforcement Rule [Attachment 3]; and “a person who has a functional disorder in the light of the three major sections of one bridge.”

B. According to the above relevant provisions, the type 1 is limited to cases where the physical area of the audience is limited to more than 1/4, and the type 2 is more than 10 meters in diameter, and the subject or criteria for determining whether the functional disorder occurred, while the type 3 is clear, its meaning cannot be deemed as clear as the case where the change after credit is obvious due to damage to the pellet,” and its meaning cannot be deemed to be “where the change after credit is obvious due to damage to the pellet.” However, the subordinate statute should be interpreted to be in conformity with the superior statute by comprehensively examining the contents, legislative intent, and history of the relevant statute, except where the provision is clearly contrary to the superior law and becomes null and void (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201

C. Meanwhile, the Korean Medical Association disability assessment criteria are classified into “defluence”, “defluence”, “defrativity after external wound,” and “defratitis.” The “stegren-LWing method”, which is used as a standard for determining the degree of the emulsion in the field of emotional emulsion, is classified into three levels: Do, mid-do, and high level depending on the rate of area where the reduction of the emulsion is observed, etc., depending on the rate of area where the emulsion is observed. Moreover, the emulsion-Ling method, which is used as a standard for determining the degree of the emulsion in the field of emotional emulsion, is classified into one to four levels in accordance with the radiation emulsion, steopophy, and the reduction of the emulsion.

D. Ultimately, in order to view that a disability rating falls under the category 3 as set forth in the Enforcement Rule (Attachment Table 4) among Class 7 8122 of the disability rating, it should be proven that the degree of social restrictions, etc. can be the same as the degree of functional disorder prescribed in the category 1 or 2 in light of the degree of the area or the degree of dubity formed after the wound of the category 1, not the limit of physical exercise area of the category 1, or the degree of dubity of the category 2 after the wound of the category 2.

2. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, it can be seen that only the opinion about the degree of scare infection is observed at the early stage where the level of scare infection is narrow compared to the external diameter.

Examining these facts in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the Plaintiff does not fall under Category 3 of the Enforcement Rule [Attachment 4] among Class 7 8122. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on disability rating standards under the Enforcement Rule [Attachment 4].

However, the plaintiff is entitled to claim a disability rating of Type 3 if the degree of social life restriction is deemed to be the same as the degree of functional disorder as that of Category 1 or 2 in light of the reduction of liverness and the degree of stimulative formation, etc., as a result of the continuous change of stimulity caused by a proximate causal relation with the performance of official duties in the future, and in addition, if the limitation or uncertainty of the exercise area of tolerance exceeds the criteria of Category 1 or 2, it may claim a disability rating of the relevant item.

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

Justices Kwon Soon-il (Presiding Justice)