[1] Whether it constitutes the scope of persons of distinguished service to the State under the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, in a case where the performance of duties or education and training was partly affected by death or wound

[2] The case affirming the judgment below which held that in case where Gap's bereaved family member died due to the outbreak of sprinkin species related to the performance of his duties while Gap was serving as a coal arrangements soldier, and his bereaved family member applied for registration to the head of the local veterans office, but the head of the local veterans office did not fall under the category of the disaster death police officer under Article 2 (1) 1 of the Act on the Support of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State, etc. for the Support of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State, but the head of the local veterans office rendered disposition that Gap constitutes the category of disaster death police officer under Article 2 (1) 1 of the Act on the Support of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State, etc. for Persons of Distinguished Service to the State, since Eul performed his duties related to the maintenance of ammunition who was an munitions, it is not directly related to the national defense, etc., but it is difficult to

[1] Article 4 (1) 5 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, Article 3 [Attachment Table 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, Article 2 (1) 1 and (2) of the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation, Article 2 [Attachment Table 1] 11 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Support for Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State / [2] Article 4 (1) 5 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, Article 3 [Attachment Table 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Support for Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State,

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2015Du46994 Decided July 27, 2016 (Gong2016Ha, 1263), Supreme Court Decision 2014Du42896 Decided August 18, 2016 (Gong2016Ha, 1364), Supreme Court Decision 2015Du49153 Decided July 11, 2017

Plaintiff (Attorney Ha-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

The head of Gwangju Regional Veterans Administration

Gwangju High Court Decision 2015Nu7516 decided June 29, 2017

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Case summary and key issues

A. On February 21, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that the deceased, who was an infant, died from the outbreak of a non-finite species in relation to his/her duties while serving as a coal agreements soldier, and filed an application for registration with the Defendant on February 21, 2013.

B. On June 25, 2013, according to a resolution of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition that the Deceased does not constitute a soldier or policeman who died on duty under Article 4(1)5 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of and Support for Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “the Act”), but constitutes a soldier or policeman who died on duty under Article 2(1)1 of the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation (hereinafter “the Act”).

C. The key issue of this case is whether the deceased constitutes a person of distinguished service to the State under the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service.

2. Regarding the requirements for recognition of persons of distinguished service

A. Article 4(1)5 of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State defines “persons who died in the line of duty or during education and training directly related to national defense and security, or the protection of the lives and property of the people (including persons who died of a disease)” as “persons who have rendered distinguished service to the State”. On the contrary, “military, police, or fire-fighting officials who died in the course of performing duties, education, and training not directly related to national defense and security, or the protection of the lives and property of the people” as “persons killed in the line of duty or during the course of duty or education and training” among persons eligible for veteran’s compensation pursuant to Article 2(1)1 of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State. The purport of the provision by dividing persons of distinguished service to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation lies in promoting the enhancement of the identity of veterans who died in the line of duty by classifying persons who have

Meanwhile, Article 4(2) of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State has been delegated to the Presidential Decree on the basis of the delegation thereof. Article 3 [Attachment Table 1] 2-8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State stipulates that “A disease medically recognized to have been caused by treating hazardous substances, such as chemical substances, cancer, infectious diseases, etc., or by directly and repeatedly exposure to such hazardous substances or the harmful environment during the performance of duties in a similar harmful environment” (Article 4(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State shall be excluded from cases where an existing disease has been caused or aggravated.” On the other hand, Article 2(2) of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State and Article 2 [Attachment Table 1] 11 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State stipulates that “A person who has been recognized as a person of distinguished service to the State has been medically recognized as having a considerable causal relationship between the occurrence or aggravation of the relevant disease (referring to continuous or aggravation of nature or aggravation).”

In full view of the contents, legislative background, and purport of the provisions of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State, and differences in the provisions on the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State and the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State, in order to recognize that performance of duties or education and training became a "direct and repetitive cause" of a disease, or that the death or wound was directly and repeatedly exposed to hazardous substances or the harmful environment for a considerable period during performance of duties or education and training, it is reasonable to deem that the death or wound must be the principal cause of performance of duties or education and training directly related to the national defense, safety, or the protection of the lives and property of the people. Therefore, even if the death or wound has partly affected, where the performance of duties or education and training cannot be deemed as a main cause of death or wound as provided in Article 3 [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State (see Supreme Court Decisions 2015Du4684, Jul. 27, 2016; 2018Du1684.

B. The lower court determined that the deceased’s performance of duties related to the maintenance of ammunition, which is the munitions, constitutes a performance of duties directly related to the national defense, etc., but it is difficult to view that the deceased’s death was caused by a disease caused by acute cause, or that the deceased’s treatment of hazardous substances, such as chemical substances, or other similar treatment of hazardous substances, or that the deceased’s disease was caused by direct and repetitive exposure to these hazardous substances or the harmful environment during the performance of duties corresponding thereto for a considerable period of time.

C. Such judgment below is based on the legal principles as seen earlier, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the relationship between performance of duties and death, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. As to the applicable legislation

A. The main sentence of Article 1 of the Addenda to the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State, amended by Act No. 11041 on September 15, 201, provides that “this Act shall enter into force on July 1, 2012,” and Article 12(2) of the Addenda provides that “The registration of a person who has rendered distinguished service to the State, his/her bereaved family members or family members, or a person who falls under Article 73-2 at the time this Act enters into force shall be governed by the previous provisions.”

B. The evidence duly admitted by the lower court reveals that the Plaintiff filed an application for registration with the Defendant on February 21, 2013 for the registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the deceased. Examining the foregoing provisions in accordance with the relevant provisions, since the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State was amended on September 15, 201 and came into force on July 1, 2012, the Plaintiff, a bereaved family member of the deceased, applied for registration with respect to the deceased, there is no room to apply the former Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State to the

C. The lower court is justifiable to determine whether to recognize persons of distinguished service to the State by applying the amended Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State, and the lower judgment did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine

4. Conclusion

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 Kim Jong-hee (Presiding Justice)