In a case where a person was killed in a wounded soldier due to death under the law enforced before the application of the former Military Support Compensation Act, whether his/her bereaved family is entitled to honorable treatment under the Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State.

Since the former Military Support Compensation Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on the Honorable Treatment, etc. of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State, Act No. 3742, Aug. 2, 1984) limited the scope of application to the wounded veterans, it is reasonable to deem that the bereaved family members can be granted honorable treatment under the same Act by applying Article 4 of the Addenda to the Act on the Honorable Treatment, etc. of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State, inasmuch as there is no reasonable ground to view differently from the progress of the wounded military registered under Article 4 of the Addenda to the Act on the Honorable Treatment, etc. of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State, so long as the Act was recognized as having

Articles 4 and 6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment, etc. of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State, Article 4 of the Addenda to the Act on the Honorable Treatment, etc. of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State, Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on the Honorable Treatment, etc. of Persons of

Plaintiff (Attorney Park Jong-hwan et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

The Commissioner of Busan Regional Veterans Administration

Busan High Court Decision 93Gu4847 delivered on July 14, 1995

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the second ground for appeal

The court below held on August 15 of the same month that the deceased non-party entered the National Defense Guard on May 6, 1949 and transferred to the Army 59 Army on June 15, 1951 after having been transferred to the Army 59 Army Hospital on the 15th of the same month from the date on which he was transferred to the Army 5th of the same month. The above deceased did not err in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence against the former Military Support Act (repealed by paragraph (2) of the Addenda of the Military Support Act, promulgated on November 11, 1961), such as receiving special consolation (28511) on August 10, 1951, and receiving a normal consolation (91420) on October 23 of the same year, there were no errors in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence against the former Military Support Act, and thus, there were no errors in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence against the Military Support Act and the deceased's pension benefits received on June 16, 1962.

2. On the first and third grounds for appeal

Article 4 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (hereinafter referred to as the "Honorable Treatment Act") provides that the following persons of distinguished service to the State and their bereaved family members shall receive the honorable treatment under this Act; Article 4 of the Act provides that persons who are registered as persons eligible for military assistance pursuant to the previous Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State shall undergo the procedure for registration under Article 6 in order to be subject to the Honorable Treatment of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State. Article 4 of the Addenda provides that persons who are registered as persons eligible for military assistance pursuant to Article 2 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State at the time of enforcement of this Act shall be deemed registered as persons of distinguished service to the State under this Act; Article 2 (1) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons, etc.

However, Article 2 (1) of the former Military Aid Compensation Act excludes bereaved families of wounded soldiers and policemen from the scope of persons eligible for the application of the Act, but the Honorable Treatment Act expands the scope of bereaved families of wounded soldiers and policemen, including the persons eligible for the application of the Act, but even if wounded soldiers and policemen registered under the former Military Aid Compensation Act die before the enforcement of the Honorable Treatment Act, their bereaved families shall be subject to the Honorable Treatment Act and the purpose of the Honorable Treatment Act [Article 1 of this Act, the purpose of this Act is to promote the stability of lives and welfare of persons of distinguished service to the State and their bereaved families by providing honorable treatment to the State and their bereaved families who have contributed or have made a sacrifice to the cultivation of patriotism of the people, and to contribute to the cultivation of the patriotism of the people, Article 2 (1) of the Korean Military Aid Compensation Act provides that the Honorable Treatment of Persons of distinguished Service to the State and their bereaved families who have contributed or have made a sacrifice in accordance with the Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons of Distinguished Service and the Act on the Compensation of Persons of Distinguished Service shall be applied differently to the Act.

In the same purport, the court below held that the non-party deceased was killed and wounded in action in accordance with the Honorable Treatment Act even if he did not have registered as a person eligible for assistance under the former Military Security Compensation Act, it is proper that the non-party deceased was killed and wounded in action in action under the former Military Security Compensation Act, since he received a pension under the former Military Security Support Act from his bereaved family members and wounded soldiers under the former Military Security Support Act, who received special and ordinary transfer from the deceased, and received a pension under the latter Military Security Support Act, but did not register as a wounded soldier. Thus, it is proper that the non-party deceased should be deemed as wounded in action under the same Act even if he did not have registered as a person eligible for assistance under the latter Military Security Compensation Act, and there is no error of law

3. Accordingly, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)