Plaintiff (Attorney Hwang Sang-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of the Jeonbuk-dong Veterans Branch Office

August 28, 2017

Jeonju District Court Decision 2016Gudan421 Decided February 22, 2017

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

On April 19, 2016, the defendant revoked a decision not to meet the requirements for persons eligible for veteran's compensation made against the plaintiff.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

The reasoning for this part of this Court is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the legality of the disposition

A. The plaintiff's assertion

As the Deceased worked on holidays in accordance with the instructions of Nonparty 1, a superior, for the purpose of performing his duties, died of an assault that was caused by Nonparty 2 in the course of getting out and admonishing on the job shortage at one-time ceremony for the purpose of boosting the morale according to the instructions of Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2, who is the highest level of the deceased, the deceased constitutes a person who died of an accident in the course of boosting, controlling, and managing the head of his department or the head of his affiliated agency, or a person who died of an accident during his duties other than performing duties under subparagraph 2-1 through 2-8 of attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Article 2(1)1 of the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation (hereinafter “Act”) provides that “A soldier, police officer, or fire-fighting official who died in the course of performing duties, or during education and training not directly related to national defense or security, or the protection of people’s lives and property,” as a person eligible for veteran’s compensation. Article 2(2) of the same Act provides that the detailed criteria for determining whether a person eligible for veteran’s compensation under each subparagraph of Article 2(1) and the scope of the Act shall be determined by Presidential Decree in consideration of the performance of duties, etc. and the degree of the State’s defense and security, or the protection of people’s lives and property, the circumstances leading the death or injury, and the degree and degree of his/her negligence.” Article 2(1)1 and 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation”) provides for the criteria and scope of eligibility for veteran’s compensation, and subparagraph 1 of attached Table 1 [Attachment 1] and 2-1-1].

2) First of all, we examine whether the deceased's death constitutes an accident or disaster among fraud, morale, or workplace events under Article 2 (1) 1 [Attachment 1] 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Veterans Compensationer Act.

Article 2(1) of the Veterans’ Compensation Act delegates the criteria and scope of the requirements for persons eligible for veteran’s compensation to the Enforcement Decree, and the language and text of the Enforcement Decree of the Veterans’ Compensation Act [Attachment Table 1] and subparagraph 10, it is reasonable to view that the purpose of the above Enforcement Decree [Attachment Table 1] 10 is not to recognize a soldier, etc. as a person who died of an accident or accident during a morale or a workplace event, not to recognize him/her as a person who died of an accident or accident as a person eligible for veteran’s compensation.

However, as seen earlier, the deceased took part in March 3, 2012, as a result, at the time when all non-commissioned officers belonging to non-commissioned officers belonging to Non-party 2, who are the best non-commissioned officers among non-commissioned officers, among non-commissioned officers, among Non-Party 1's administrative diffusion officers belonging to the △△ Group △△ Group △△ Group. However, according to the above evidence, it is recognized that the non-party 2 was the captain of the △△ Group, who is the non-commissioned Officer belonging to the deceased. Accordingly, although Non-party 2 was the best among non-commissioned officers belonging to the △ Group, it is not the head of the unit to which the deceased belongs, it is not the head of the unit to which the non-party 2 belongs, but was delegated the direction and management of the △ Group △ Group 10 [Attachment 1] of Article 2 (1) [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the Veterans Compensation Act or the head of the affiliated agency's command and management of the workplace or the accident.

3) Next, we examine whether the deceased is a deceased person due to an accident in the course of performing his/her duties under Article 2(1)1 [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the Patriots and Veterans Compensationer Act.

According to the evidence mentioned above, the meeting of this case was not reported to the Ministry of Magna or △△ Hospital. The other soldiers belonging to Magna was not present at the meeting, while Nonparty 2's wife and children were present at the meeting at the meeting, the deceased was divided into the team by Nonparty 2's proposal after the opening of the meeting, and Nonparty 2 was to bear the costs of singing at the meeting. The deceased was to write out the singing at the meeting, and after being pointed out about the matters related to his duties from Nonparty 2, the deceased was to write out, and after being pointed out, he was to write out the singing at the singing, and after being pointed out about the matters related to his duties from Nonparty 2, it was recognized that Nonparty 2 was "at the time of his death," and that Nonparty 2 was "at the time of his death," and that Nonparty 2 was "at the time of his death," and that Nonparty 2 was "at the time of his death."

According to this, in light of the fact that the meeting of this case was first made by Nonparty 1’s proposal, that only noncommissioned officers belonging to the e/mail group were present, that other soldiers did not attend, that the family of Nonparty 2 was present, and that the head of the department or the commander was not reported, etc., it appears to be a private meeting organized between noncommissioned Officers (this refers to a private meeting as a matter of course) and it is difficult to view that this is in the performance of duties. Even if the meeting is related to the fraud or work of the warehouse rearrangement work, even if it is deemed that it is related to the duty as a fraud or work event for the warehouse rearrangement work, it is difficult to see that the subsequent meeting of the party head and singing room was a private friendship group, which is not related to the duty performance, in light of the circumstances such as the fact that the party head and singing room were made by installing the e/mail group, and it is difficult to recognize that the deceased’s noncommissioned officer was subject to the duty performance of Article 1(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the deceased Act.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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

[Attachment]

Judges Yellow Jin-gu (Presiding Judge)