(영문) 광주고등법원 2017.6.15.선고 2016누5296 판결

2. One-half of the total litigation costs between the Plaintiff and the Defendant shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

Purport of claim and appeal

On July 24, 2013, the judgment of the first instance court is revoked. In the first instance court, the defendant revoked the disposition that was non-applicable to the plaintiff as a person of distinguished service to the plaintiff on July 24, 2013. In the first instance, the defendant claimed the above two claims against the plaintiff on July 24, 2013 (the plaintiff claimed the above two claims in a simple combination, but the above two claims are in the primary and preliminary relationship, and the form of consolidation is determined based on the nature of the non-conforming claims. Therefore, the purport of the claim is examined as above).

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 15, 1976, the deceased C (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") was transferred to the DD combat police force of the Jeonnam local police station on September 25, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the former D combat police force of this case"). On September 25, 1976, he was on duty at the headquarters of the Republic of Korea (e.g., the former C) and was assigned as a coast guard located in the former Gonam-gun E, the deceased on November 20, 1976, when he was on duty at the latter Seocho-gun (0:00 to 04:00).

B. On November 30, 2004, the Plaintiff, the father of the deceased, filed an application for registration of bereaved family members with the Defendant. However, on August 26, 2005, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the decision equivalent to the amount of bereaved family members of a person who has rendered distinguished service to the State on the ground that “The deceased was recognized to have committed suicide during his service on the ground that it does not meet the criteria for recognition of persons who have rendered distinguished service to the State under the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, because it is recognized to have committed suicide during his service on the part of the deceased.” The Plaintiff appealed on November 16,

C. After December 12, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a petition for the death of the Deceased on the part of the Korean Film Mediation Committee for the Truth and Reconciliation, and on April 21, 2006, the instant case was transferred to the Military Literature Finding Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “Committee”). The instant committee was investigated on March 26, 2008 on the ground that “the deceased is presumed to have committed suicide, on the other hand, it cannot be confirmed whether there was suspicions by the appointed members who could be deemed to have been the direct cause of the instant suicide, and thus, it cannot be confirmed whether there was any suspicion of the deceased’s death reasons.” Although the Plaintiff filed an objection against the said decision, it was dismissed on July 23, 2008.

D. On October 15, 2012, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a written determination of the instant committee, etc., stating that there was a suspicion on the deceased’s appointment soldiers, and filed an application for registration of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the deceased and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation. However, on July 24, 2013, the Defendant made a statement that “the deceased had been engaged in sacity, harsh acts, or mountain Dara 1” on the part of the deceased, that he was working in other portraits than E, or worked in the sentrys after the deceased died, that the members were transferred to the deceased. On the other hand, since there was no change in circumstances, such as denying the above contents and not finding other members who worked in the sentrys like the deceased, it is difficult to recognize that there was a direct cause for the deceased’s performance of military service or education or training related to the deceased’s performance of duties, etc. on the ground that it directly related to the deceased’s defense or the deceased’s performance of duties.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5 through 8, 12, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

3. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In light of the fact that there was a statement by a staff member of the same company, who suffered from a mental illness in a usual and scenic sense, and died, there was no motive to commit suicide, such as sending a letter that the deceased would immediately leave his/her family. As such, the deceased was committed suicide since one month has not yet passed since he/she was placed at the coast guard, and the military authorities did not show that he/she would be the basis for determining suicide, not at the time, and there was a statement by the senior soldier that there was a suspicion, such as sacity against the deceased, etc., it is apparent that the deceased did not commit any cruel act, such as the sacrifties of the senior soldier. As such, there was a proximate causal relation between the deceased’s military duty and the death, and thus, the preliminary disposition at issue is unlawful, and the pertinent disposition at issue is unlawful.

(b) Fact of recognition;

1) At the time for the purpose of a counter-espionage operation, the instant fleet was comprised of four sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-

2) After being placed as E in the first place, the Deceased, as the lowest number of members of the first place of service, carried out the number of meals per meal as the immediate upper number of members of the first place of service, and in addition, he disposed of miscellaneous activities, such as cleaning and drinking roadsides.

3) At the time when the Deceased’s service was performed, most of the early stations affiliated with the instant front belt, including J sentrys, were cruel acts, such as betasa, etc. against the remaining soldiers. In the event that there was a scopic, meal service numbers (the so-called scopic disease) were prepared for alcohol, or was scopic by the appointed soldiers, and even after the completion of the copic period, the so-called scopic disease was a scopic event. While the scopic rank was mainly conducted between the scopic commander and the nearby early scopic order of supervision, the small scopic commander also expressed scopic scopic.

4) On the day of the death of the deceased, the Plaintiff responded to the purport that “(the deceased’s personal relation) was transferred only to the deceased’s parents who was transferred only to the deceased’s death, and that the deceased’s wife and the two were to find only the above unit. From the above unit’s wife, the Plaintiff did not properly confirm the deceased’s death, and without properly ascertaining whether the deceased’s body had his wife, etc. on the deceased’s body, the person related to the above unit was “the deceased was the deceased, and there was no material such as suicide,” and then the person related to the above unit’s death did not have any material such as suicide.”

5) Around November 22, 1976, the deceased’s body was buried in the Haak-gun, Haak-gun, Haak-gun, Haak-gun, where the president and the senior officers of each of the Haak-gun, including E, were transferred to the Haak-gun, and all of the senior officers of each of the Haak-gun, including E, were transferred to the Haak-gun, and were transferred to the Haak-gun.

6) Meanwhile, on November 30, 2004, the plaintiff was related to the application for the registration of bereaved family members of the person who has rendered distinguished services to the defendant on November 30, 2004, and the "reasons for death" of the certificate of death concerning the deceased sent by the commissioner of the Jeonnam Police Agency to the Minister of Patriots and Veterans Affairs on March 8, 2005 is stated as "(the deceased) on November 20, 1976 in the new wall (0:0 to 04:00) that was sent to him on the part of his head (M1 small guns) and died, and on the part of his head (M1 small guns) who was working on the part of himself on the part of the defendant and the prosecutor's office under the direction of the commander at the time of investigation and the prosecutor at the investigation, it is not sufficient to confirm it as a suicide, not a suicide, but a witness's statement, and to settle it as a defense accident (based on the certificate and witness at the time of death)."

[Evidence] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 9, 12, Eul evidence Nos. 5 to 7, Eul evidence Nos. 5 to 7, M&N's testimony, N's testimony, part of witness L of the trial court, the party's identification against the plaintiff of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination on the legitimacy of the non-existence of a disposition that rendered distinguished service to the State

1) Relevant legal principles

The Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (amended by Act No. 11041, Sept. 15, 201; hereinafter referred to as the "Act on the Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State") was enacted with the aim of contributing to gathering their livelihood stability and welfare and promoting citizens' patriotism by properly treating and supporting persons of distinguished services to the State, their bereaved families, or their families who have made sacrifice or contributions to the State. The Act on the Support for Persons, etc. Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation (amended by Act No. 11042, Sep. 15, 201; hereinafter referred to as the "Act on the Persons, etc.") was enacted with the aim of contributing to the stabilization of their livelihood and the improvement of their welfare by causing reasonable support to persons eligible for veteran’s compensation, their bereaved families, or their families. The purpose of division is to classify them as persons of distinguished services to the State who are required to receive honorable treatment from the people among the objects of veteran’s compensation merely, as persons who need compensation.

On the other hand, Article 4 (1) of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State stipulates the requirements of persons of distinguished service to the State to which the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State applies to national and social development (No. 18), among them, the requirements of persons of distinguished service to the State are classified as soldiers and policemen (No. 3), soldiers and policemen killed or wounded in action (No. 4), soldiers and policemen killed or wounded in action (No. 5), and soldiers killed or wounded in action (No. 6), and soldiers and policemen killed or wounded in action (including soldiers and police officers who died in action) who died in action or on duty directly related to national defense and security, national security, or national life and property protection (hereinafter referred to as "national defense and security, or national life and property protection").

In addition, Article 4 (2) of the Act on the Persons of Distinguished Services to the State provides for the criteria and scope of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State under subparagraphs 3 through 6 of the same paragraph, comprehensively taking into account the following factors: "the scope of performance of duties or education and training, and the degree related to the protection of the lives and property of the people (including diseases)" and "the circumstance that military police officers died or were injured (including diseases)" and "the existence and degree of their own negligence". Each subparagraph of Article 3 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Persons of Distinguished Services to the State") prescribe the criteria and scope of the requirements for persons of distinguished services to the State; subparagraph 3 of the attached Table 1 (hereinafter referred to as "the attached Table of this case") to regulate on the movement of suspects or persons who were killed or wounded in the line of duty and to protect their own life and security from danger and injury:

As such, the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State requires that the former Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State requires that “the nature of the performance of duties, etc. shall be directly related to the protection of the State,” unlike that of the former Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State, which is recognized as persons of distinguished Service to the State, shall be distinguished from the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State, which does not stipulate the above requirements with regard to the nature of the performance of duties, etc

In addition, according to the delegation of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State, comprehensively considering the following: “The extent of the performance of duties or education and training and the protection of national defense and security, or the protection of the lives and property of the people” and “the circumstances where death or injury (including illness) occurred and the existence and degree of negligence of the persons of distinguished services to the State”, the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State requires that there be a direct causal relationship between the performance of duties or education and training and the accident or accident where the performance of duties directly related to the protection of the State stipulated in subparagraph 2-1(b) of the attached Table 2-1 of this case should be determined that the person of distinguished services to the State was killed or wounded, and that there is a direct causal relationship between the person of distinguished services to the State and the person of distinguished services to the State and the person of distinguished services to the State in accordance with Article 2 [Attachment 1] subparag. 1 and 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State. 8.

2) Determination

In light of the above legal principles, it can be deemed that the deceased's service performed at the time of suicide falls under the duty of direct relation to the protection of the nation, etc. as a kind of "expenses prescribed in subparagraph 2-1 (b) of the attached Table 2-1 of this case". However, only because the deceased committed suicide during his service at time, it cannot be deemed that the deceased died as a direct cause for performing the duty of care directly related to the protection, etc. of the state. In addition, as seen below, since the main cause of the deceased's suicide is the duty of direct relation to the protection, etc. of the State, it cannot be deemed that the direct cause of the deceased's suicide falls under the duty of care directly related to the protection, etc. of the State, 'the duty of care directly related to the protection, etc. of the State', 'the duty directly related to the protection, etc. of the State'.

Therefore, the deceased constitutes a soldier or policeman who died on duty under Article 4(1)5 of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State. The plaintiff's primary claim is without merit because it is difficult to see

D. Determination as to the legitimacy of a decision made in favor of a person eligible for veteran’s compensation

1) Article 2(1)1 of the Patriots and Veterans Compensation Act provides that “A soldier, police officer, or fire-fighting official who died in the course of performing his/her duty 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)1 of the Act provides that the detailed criteria and scope of persons eligible for veteran’s compensation under each subparagraph of paragraph (1) of the same Article shall be determined by Presidential Decree in consideration of the degree of the performance of his/her duty, etc. and the relevant background or degree of his/her negligence, and the existence and degree of his/her negligence. According to the foregoing delegation, Article 2(1)1 and 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation (hereinafter “the Decree on Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation”) sets out the criteria and scope of persons eligible for veteran’s compensation, and subparagraph 1 of the attached Table 1 provides that a person who died in the course of performing his/her duty or his/her negligence shall be excluded from his/her duty.

2) Meanwhile, Article 2(3) of the Patriots and Veterans Compensation Act provides that persons eligible for veteran’s compensation are excluded from those eligible for veteran’s compensation, if they were killed or wounded on the ground falling under “where they were killed or wounded on the ground of an intentional or gross negligence by the principal or an order of his superior, or where they significantly violated the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes or an order of his superior (i.e., where they were killed or wounded due to an accident or a disaster (ii) in the absence of official duties, or where private acts which cannot be deemed as an act such as fighting in the absence of official duties (Article 2(2)). As seen earlier, Article 2(3) of the former Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State which recognized persons of distinguished Services to the State as persons of distinguished Services to the State based on proximate causal relation between the death and the injury or injury, and Article 2(2) of the former Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State should not be deemed as a person who died or wounded on the ground that the provision of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services 2 was excluded from the duty.

3) 위와 같은 법령 및 법리에 비추어 이 사건에 관하여 보건대, 위 인정사실과 앞 서 든 증거들 및 갑 제10호증의 기재, 당심 증인 M, N의 각 증언에 변론 전체의 취지 를 더하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정 , 즉 ① 이 사건 전경대 예비소대에서 근무하 던 신병들은 훈련소와 똑같은 훈련의 연장인 예비소대 근무를 오래 하고 싶어 하지 않 고 초소 근무를 희망하였고, 그리하여 망인은 E 초소로 배치되자 굉장히 즐거운 마음 으로 떠났는데, 그러한 망인이 E 초소에 배치된 지 한 달도 채 지나지 않아 자살에 이 른 점, ② 망인은 밝고 긍정적인 명랑한 성격이었고, E 초소에서 근무하는 동안 이성 관계 등의 문제로 고민한 적도 없었던 것으로 보이며, 입대 전까지 정신질환을 앓은 병력도 없었고, 자살하기 며칠 전 곧 휴가를 나가게 된다는 내용의 편지를 가족들에게 보내기까지 한 점 등에 비추어 볼 때, 망인이 E 초소에서 근무했던 한 달도 안 되는 짧은 기간 동안 정신질환이나 개인적인 신상문제로 갑자기 자살했을 가능성은 거의 없 어 보이는 점, ③ 망인이 E 초소에 배치되기 이전인 1975. 3.경부터 1975. 9.경까지 위 초소에서는 산다이가 자주 있었고 망인의 사망사고가 발생한 이후에도 위 초소에서 산 다이가 몇 차례 있었던 것으로 미루어, 망인이 근무할 당시에도 E 초소에서 산다이가 있었다고 봄이 상당한 점, ④ 또한 당시는 군 문화 특성상 부대 내에 구타 및 가혹행 위가 종종 있었던 시절이었고, 특히 이 사건 전경대 소속 해안초소에서 각목으로 엉덩 이를 치는 구타행위( 일명 '빳다')가 자주 있었던 것으로 보이는바, 이 사건 당시 망인이 근무했던 E 초소에서도 선임병들의 후임병들에 대한 구타 등 가혹행위가 있었을 것으 로 추정되는 점, ⑤ 나아가 망인과 동기였던 M은 평소 E 초소 선임병 중에 후임병을 힘들게 하는 사람이 있다는 소문을 들었고, 망인이 사망한 이후에는 이 사건 전경대 예비소대 동기들과 사이에 "저것들(선임병들)이 애들을 두들겨 패서 일이 이렇게 터졌 는데 영창가지 않겠느냐"는 취지의 이야기를 하였으며, 망인이 사망한 지 약 한 달 후 에 J초소로 발령받아 근무하면서 그곳 분대장으로 온 F(망인이 사망할 당시 E 초소의 임시 분대장이었던 자 )로부터 "사내놈(망인)이 그걸 못 참아서 자살하냐" 는 식의 이야 기를 몇 번 들었다는 것인바, 그러한 사정을 감안할 때 당시 위 초소에서 제일 후임병 이었던 망인에 대한 선임병들의 구타 등 가혹행위가 있었다고 추단할 수 있는 점, ⑥ 만약 망인이 일신상의 문제로 사망한 것에 불과하다면, 망인의 사망 직후 이 사건 중 대본부가 E 초소를 포함한 산하 각 초소의 고참 선임병들을 모두 중대본부로 소환시 켜 그곳에서 전역시키거나 각기 다른 초소로 재배치한 이유를 설명하기 어려운 점, ① 그리고 망인과 동기였던 N은 이 사건 위원회 및 당심 법정에서 " 이 사건 전경대 중대 본부 위경소에서 근무할 당시 그곳에서 약 10m 정도 떨어진 들에서 망인의 시신에 대 한 의사의 부검이 있었는데, 당시 성명불상의 소대장으로부터 망인의 손등에 찰과상이 있고 몸에 멍이 있는 것을 보았다는 말을 들었다 "라고 진술하였는데, 그 진술이 일관 될 뿐만 아니라 망인과 동기이긴 하나 망인과 같이 근무한 적이 없는 등 전혀 이해관 계가 없어 거짓으로 진술할 이유가 없어 보이고, 위 M 역시 이 사건 위원회 및 당심 법정에서 "성명불상의 부대원으로부터 망인의 사망 전날에 E 초소에서 산다이가 있었 고, 망인과 그 윗 기수 대원인 L이 선임병들에게 심하게 구타당한 후에 울었다는 이야 기를 들었다"라고 진술하였는데, 그 진술이 일관되고 비록 당시 E 초소에서 근무한 부 대원들에게 들은 것은 아니지만 앞서 언급한 정황과 부합하는 등 위 N 및 M의 각 진 술이 신빙성이 있는 점 , ⑧ 한편, 위 L은 당심 법정에서 이 사건 위원회에서 조사받았 을 때와 같이 "이 사건 당시 E 초소에서 산다이도 , 구타 등 가혹행위도 전혀 없었다." 라고 진술하였는데, 위 위원회에서조차 당시 L의 진술태도에 대해 "L이 망인과 가장 많은 대화를 나누었을 위치에 있었고 직접 망인의 시체를 수습하는 등 사건 경위에 대 하여 가장 잘 알고 있을 핵심 참고인임에도 불구하고 처음 출석요구 시부터 오래된 일 이라서 기억하고 있는 것도 없고 특별히 진술할 내용이 없다는 식으로 출석을 기피하 였고, 현직 경찰이라는 신분 때문에 진술하는 데 부담을 느끼는 듯 하였으며, 대부분의 참고인들이 당시 해안초소에서는 구타와 산다이가 일반화되어 있었다고 진술하고 있음 에도 자신이 E 초소에서 근무하는 동안 한 번도 구타나 산다이가 없었다고 진술하고 함께 근무했던 대원들이 단 한명도 기억나지 않는다고 하는 등 가능한 한 이 사건에 관여하지 않으려는 자세를 보인다"라고 기술하고 있는 점에 비추어 L의 위와 같은 진 술은 신빙성이 떨어진다고 할 것이며, 위와 같은 L의 태도로 인해 이 사건 위원회에 서 망인의 사망사건 당시 E 초소에서 근무했던 대원들에 대해서는 전혀 조사가 이루 어지지 못하였고, 그 결과 이 사건 위원회가 망인이 선임병들로부터 구타 등 가혹행위 를 당하였는지 여부 및 망인의 사망과의 인과관계 유무를 확정할 수 없다는 이유로 진 상규명불능 결정을 하였던 점(그리고 "상부에서 수시로 구타금지 지시가 내려오기 때 문에 구타 등 가혹행위는 없다고 본다 " 는 F의 진술 역시 이 사건 위원회가 면담한 참 고인들 대부분이 당시 이 사건 전경대 산하 초소에서 구타나 산다이가 일반화되어 있 었다고 진술하고 있는 것과 배치되는 등 신빙성이 없는 한편, 위 F는 E 초소 소대장이 휴가를 간 5일 동안 직무대리로 소대장을 맡았던 것에 불과하여 그가 평상 시 망인에 대한 선임병들의 가혹행위가 있었는지에 대해 잘 알지 못하였을 개연성도 있어 보인 다), ⑨ 위 F가 2005. 1. 26. 망인의 사망사고에 관해 작성한 의견서에 "즉시 본부에 보고하여 부대 지휘관 및 경찰서 수사과에서 나와 현장을 확인한 후 검찰의 지휘를 받 아 당시 참고인(분대원) 진술 및 망인이 부모에게 보내기 위해 써놓은 편지 등 기타 여러 정황 등으로 보아 자살로 판명되어 변사사건처리 종결한 것으로 기억됩니다"라고 기재되어 있고, 이 사건 위원회의 2007. 12. 3.부터 2007. 12. 5.까지의 출장조사에서도 O(망인의 사망 당시 이 사건 전경대 대장)과 위 F가 "자살원인을 규명하기 위해 메모 지나 일기장, 편지가 있는지 찾고 있다는 보고를 받은 기억이 있다", "누군가 망인이 사망하기 며칠 전에 편지를 썼다는 말을 하여 혹시 무슨 단서가 있지 않을까 하는 생 각으로 고흥경찰서 수사팀이 우체국의 협조를 받아 망인의 편지를 수거했다는 말을 들 었다", "고흥경찰서 수사팀이 우체통에서 수거한 편지의 내용이 염세적이었다고 말한 것으로 기억된다"라고 각 진술하였으며, 사람이 자살할 때 가족 등에게 유서를 남기는 것이 일반적인 점 등을 감안하면 망인이 죽기 전 부모에게 남긴 편지 또는 유서가 존 재하였다고 보이는데, 이 사건 당시 이 사건 전경대나 고흥경찰서 수사팀이 망인의 유 가족에게 편지 내지 유서를 전달하지 않은 것은 일반 상식에 어긋날 뿐만 아니라 사건 을 축소·은폐하려 했다는 의혹을 지울 수 없게 하는 점, ① E 초소는 인근 마을에서 1 ㎞가량 떨어진 약 100m 높이의 절벽 위에 있고 인근 초소와도 3 ~4m가량씩 떨어져 있어서 평상 시 다른 이들의 왕래가 거의 없이 9명의 분대원들만이 같이 생활하는 상 황이었는데, 망인은 위 초소의 제일 하급병으로서 동기병도 전혀 없이 8명의 선임병과 함께 생활함에 따라 선임병들로부터 가혹행위를 당할 경우 스트레스가 극심하였을 것 으로 보이는 데에다가, 망인이 분대원들이 취침 중이었음에도 그 옆에서 머리에 총을 쏘아 자살한 점까지 보태어 보면, 당시 망인이 초소 불침번 근무를 하다가 힘든 전투 경찰대 복무 및 그와 관련된 구타, 가혹행위 등을 견디지 못하고 극도의 불안감과 절 망감에 빠져 합리적이고 이성적인 판단을 기대하기 매우 어려운 상태에서 자살에 이르 게 되었다고 봄이 상당하다.

Ultimately, it is reasonable to view that the proximate causal relation between the deceased and the deceased's duty of care and security of the state or duty not directly related to the protection of the people's lives and property as stipulated in Article 2 (1) 1 of the Patriots and Veterans Compensation Act is recognized, and that the proximate causal relation is denied solely on the ground that the death was caused by suicide.

4) Sub-determination

Therefore, the deceased shall be limited to the case of a disaster under Article 2 (1) 1 of the Patriots and Veterans Compensation Act, and the defendant's disposition of non-determination of a person eligible for veteran's compensation on a different premise is illegal.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's main claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the conjunctive claim is accepted as reasonable. Since the part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with some different conclusions, the plaintiff's appeal is partially accepted and the judgment of the court of first instance is modified as above, it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges

(Presiding Judge)

Freeboard

Korean-style Exchange

Note tin

1) The young women who live in a nearby village are drinking together and singing together by the sentrys, etc.

It refers to interest events.

Site of separate sheet

Relevant statutes

Article 4 of the former Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (amended by Act No. 13605, Dec. 22, 2015) (Persons of Distinguished Service to the State)

(1) Persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and their bereaved family members or families falling under any of the following subparagraphs (other Acts):

Any person who is provided with the honorable treatment, etc. under this Act shall be entitled to honorable treatment under this Act.

5. Soldiers or police officers killed in the line of duty: Military personnel, police officers, and fire officers who are national defense, security, or citizens of the State;

person who died during the performance of duties or education and training directly related to the protection of his/her life and property (a disease);

(including a person who died)

(2) Whether a person meets the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished service to the State under paragraph (1) 3 through 6, 14 and 15.

Detailed standards for, and the scope of, the following matters shall be comprehensively considered by Presidential Decree:

The determination shall be determined.

1. Scope of combat action or other performance of duties corresponding thereto;

2. Relevant degree of duties or education and training, and national defense and security, or protection of the lives and property of the people;

3. Circumstances where he/she was killed or wounded (including a disease), and the existence and degree of his/her negligence;

(6) A person meeting the following requirements under paragraph (1) 3 through 6, 14, or 15:

Paragraph (1) shall apply where a person is killed or wounded (including a disease) due to a cause falling under any of the following subparagraphs:

Persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and registered pursuant to Article 6, their bereaved family members or families shall be excluded.

1. Intention or gross negligence of the principal or other related Acts and subordinate statutes or litigation without any inevitable reason;

Where an order of his superior substantially violates the order;

2. Where it is caused by an accident or disaster while he deserts his official duties; and

3. Where any private act which cannot be deemed a performance of duties, such as bullfighting, has caused such private act;

Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons of Distinguished Service

Article 3 (Standards and Scope of Requirements for Persons of Distinguished Services to State)

(1) The standards and scope of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State under Article 4 (2) of the Act shall be as follows:

3. Persons falling under Article 4 (1) 5 and 14 of the Act: From 2-2-1 to 2-8 of attached Table 1.

a deceased person who falls under any of the above

[Attachment 1]

Criteria for and scope of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State (Article 3 related thereto)

2. Performance of duties directly related to the defense and security of the State or the protection of the lives and property of the people;

A person who was killed or wounded during education and training (the protection and security of the State or a national life);

The occurrence of a disease due to the performance of duties or education and training directly related to the protection of name and property;

(including a person who died of such disease)

A person shall be appointed.

Gu Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran's Compensation (Amended by Act No. 13608, Dec. 22, 2015)

Article 2 (Persons Eligible for Veteran's Compensation)

(1) Any of the following persons' veteran's compensation and his/her family members, bereaved or not (if any other Act requires compensation:

Any person who is provided with assistance, etc. under the Act shall be provided with assistance under this Act.

1. Soldiers killed in a disaster: Military personnel, police officers, and fire-fighting officers of the State's defense, security, or people's livelihood;

A person who died in the course of performing duties or education and training not directly related to the protection of life and property (a disease);

(including a deceased person)

(2) Detailed criteria for determining whether a person meets the requirements for persons eligible for veteran's compensation and the scope thereof under paragraph (1).

The following matters shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree in comprehensive consideration:

1. Relevant extent of duties or education and training, and national defense and security, or the protection of the lives and property of the people;

2. Circumstances where he/she was killed or wounded (including a disease), and the existence and degree of his/her negligence;

(3) A person who falls under any of the requirements referred to in the subparagraphs of paragraph (1) shall fall under any of the following:

If a person dies or is wounded (including a disease), a veterans' compensation reserve registered pursuant to paragraph (1) or Article 4;

A wounded noble person, his bereaved family member or his family member shall be excluded.

1. Intention or gross negligence of the principal or other related Acts and subordinate statutes or litigation without any inevitable reason;

Where an order of his superior substantially violates the order;

2. Where it is caused by an accident or disaster while he deserts his official duties; and

3. Where a private act which cannot be deemed a performance of duties, such as a fighting in distress, has caused such private act;

Article 4 (Registration and Determination)

(1) The State, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, as a person eligible for veteran's compensation or his/her bereaved family or family.

An application for registration shall be filed with the Minister of Veterans Affairs.

(2) Article 4 (1) 3 through 6 and 14 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State.

A company applying for registration pursuant to Article 6 (1) of the same Act to become a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State under subparagraph 15;

With respect to sight, registration under paragraph (1) shall be deemed to have been applied for on the date the application for registration was made.

Enforcement Decree of the Act on Supporting Persons Eligible for Veteran's Compensation

Article 2 (Criteria and Scope of Requirements for Persons Eligible for Veteran's Compensation)

(1) Veterans' compensation under Article 2 (2) of the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran's Compensation (hereinafter referred to as the "Act").

The standards for requirements for persons eligible and the scope of such requirements shall be as follows:

1. Persons falling under Article 2 (1) 1 or 2 of the Act: subparagraphs 1 through 15 of attached Table 1;

1111.6

[Attachment 1]

Criteria for and scope of persons eligible for veteran's compensation (related to Article 2)

A person shall be appointed.

C. The causal relationship

A person shall be appointed.

Finally, the causal relationship is the end.

심급 사건

-광주지방법원 2014.5.22.선고 2013구단1044

-광주고등법원 2015.1.22.선고 2014누5513