(Official)Revocation of decisions that meet the requirements for persons of distinguished service to the State;

A

Head of Jinju Veterans Branch Office

Changwon District Court Decision 2014Guhap20559 Decided November 14, 2014

June 10, 2015

July 1, 2015

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. On February 4, 2014, the decision that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on February 4, 2014 falls under the non-conformity of the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 2, 2012, the Plaintiff (B) entered the Air Force, and discharged the Plaintiff from active service on April 5, 2013 on the ground that he was on official duty.

B. On July 16, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration with the Defendant, stating that “The Plaintiff sustained an injury from which the left-hand side was increased by July 2012 while serving in the military, and subsequently, around September 2012 and December 2012, the Plaintiff did not conduct a pedago for the preparation of the Military Veterans Association, while performing a pedagocing practice, and the left-hand slotist and the left-hand slotist dives of anti-months (hereinafter “the instant difference”).” (The state after the operation) was applied for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State.

C. On February 4, 2014, the Defendant rendered a decision on the Plaintiff on February 4, 2014 that the instant wound did not constitute a causal relationship with the military performance of official duties, and thus, rendered a decision on the eligibility of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State and a person eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On May 1, 2014, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit and filed an appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on May 1, 2014, but the said commission dismissed the said claim on October 8, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, 4, Eul evidence 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff, while serving in the military in July 2012, was suffering from the instant wounds due to the military contests and various training and other operations around September 2012 and around December 2012.

2) The Plaintiff passed the physical examination without any way before entering the military, completed the training for believers normally, and the kneeman, kneeman, etc., is not different from naturally proceeding so that the degree of the difference in the instant case aggravated due to the performance of military duties.

3) Therefore, there is a proximate causal relationship between the instant difference and the Plaintiff’s performance of official duties. Therefore, the instant disposition on a different premise should be revoked as unlawful.

B. Facts of recognition,

1) On January 16, 2013, the Plaintiff served as a preliminary team education and training and a distribution soldier of the Air Force Article 27. On January 16, 2013, the military service was conducted by the National Armed Forces Security Hospital, the examination conducted a determination of the left-hand slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slives and slive slive slive slives of the left-hand slives. On January

2) The phrase “a hospital in charge of performing official duties” and the phrase “a hospital in charge of a certificate of a soldier’s disease” state that “the plaintiff, around July 2012, was a master’s degree for a week after he/she suffered an injury that is the left-hand figure in the axis between the members of the military unit. Since then, he/she had a normal life, he/she continued to engage in a state-free practice for two consecutive months after September 2012 and December 2012 in order to prepare a military police conference, and there is symptoms that water gets worse.”

3) On July 6, 2012 and July 12, 2012, the records of the outpatients of the Air Force Education Headquarters, the Plaintiff received treatment, stating that “other knees and tensions of a knee are provided”. On November 19, 2012, the records of the outpatients of the Air Force Education Headquarters, the Plaintiff received treatment with “other knees inside knee, other kne structures, and other knes and tensions of a knee structure,” and considered that the Plaintiff received treatment with smoking.

4) On December 17, 2012, the National Armed Forces Happiness Hospital, which was operated by the Plaintiff, stated "on the left knee Lt, four years prior to 4 years prior to the entrance," and "on the face of the above hospital's entrance records prepared by Map foreign and D," the term "on the face of the entrance records of the above hospital "on January 23, 2013" stated "on the left sle of the front knee slee slee sle slebling, during the work inside the unit after entering the unit, the Plaintiff continued to visit the front 3rd sle slebling and the outer sle slebling sle sle sle sle sle sle sle sle sle sle sle sle sle sle sle se sle sle se sle se sle se se se 1 to the left.

5) On April 5, 2013, even after the Plaintiff was discharged from active service on the grounds of his former official duty, the Plaintiff received several medical treatments from C Hospital in the form of tropis, a total of thousands.

6) The Plaintiff was under medical treatment at the F Hospital on February 18, 2008, 2008, knee-free knee-fe-fee-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-g

7) In the opinion of opinion, the F Hospital G medical doctor who treated the Plaintiff: (a) visited the emergency room and the outpatient in the left-hand knee room at the time; (b) the Plaintiff did not have any unique opinion in the personal examination; and (c) there was no opinion suggesting the pansty or the feel fever; and (d) tried to observe the progress at the time of an abnormal opinion but did not observe the present situation at the time of the present situation because there was no opinion.”

8) The appraisal of the court of the first instance shows that "the opinion of the doctor G's above opinion is low credibility, and the acute symptoms can occur due to preserved treatment, and that the walking or the air conditioning movement is close to the normal conditions, so the normal completion of the military physical examination and the education and training of new soldiers could have been possible, even if the difference of the plaintiff is assumed to have started due to the spatition, since the plaintiff continued to serve in the military without recognizing it, it is judged that the military service would have been rapidly progress beyond the natural progress due to the activities of the military service."

9) The pansty fever mainly occurs by external wounds. The symptoms of acute symptoms include slot, fluoral, and physical restrictions, chronic symptoms, which cause stimulious pre-demersion, and stimulious depression, and anti-monthly depression on the basis of the young age. The symptoms are limited to pain and stimulation.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4, the result of the commission of the medical record appraisal to the director of Busan University Hospital of the trial court, the purport of the whole pleadings

(c) Markets:

1) “A soldier or police officer wounded in the course of education and training or performance of duty (including diseases in official duties)” referred to in Article 4(1)6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State refers to the injury or disease of a soldier or police officer during education and training or in the performance of duty. Therefore, in order to be different from the above provision, there should be a proximate causal relationship between education and training or in the performance of duty and the injury or disease, and the causal relationship between the injury and the injury should be proved by the assertion of the causal relationship. However, the causal relationship does not necessarily have to be proved by medical and natural science, but it should be determined not by the average person of education and training or in the performance of duty but by the case where it is presumed that there is a proximate causal relationship between the injury and disease in education and training or in the performance of duty and in the performance of duty, taking into account all the circumstances, the causal relationship should be determined based on the relevant average health and physical condition of the soldier (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du667.

2) In full view of the following circumstances revealed in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the purport of the entire pleadings, it can be determined that the instant difference occurred due to education and training, occupational performance, or external wound or depression performed by the Plaintiff while serving in the military. Even if the Plaintiff had been raised, it is reasonable to deem that the disease was rapidly aggravated due to training, occupational excess, etc.

① The Plaintiff did not have any special circumstances on the left-hand knene’s kne’s kne’s kne’s kne’s kne’s kne’s kne’s kne’s kne’s kne’s kne’s kne’s kne’s kne’s kne’s kne’s kne’s kne’s kne’s kne’s kne’s kne’s kne’s kne’s kne’s kne’s kne’s kne’s kne, but, on October 20, 2009, the Plaintiff had been treated as a kne’s kne’s kne’s kne, but there

② On November 19, 2012, the Plaintiff, without any special treatment, was knee-fele-fele-fele-fele-fele-fele-fele-fele-fele-fele-fele-fele-fele-fele-fele-fele-fele-fele-fele-fele-fele-fele-fele-fele-fele-gel-gel-gel-gel-gel-gel-gel-gel-gel-gel-gel-gel-gel-gel-gel-gel-gel-gel-gel-gel-gel-ge-gel-gel-gel-gel-gel-gel-gel-gel-gel-gel-gel-gel-gel-gel-gel-gel-gel-gel-gel-gel-gel-

③ Among the instant wounds, the pansty fever mainly caused by external wounds, and the pansty fever between the internal half and the Plaintiff is generally caused by external wounds in terms of the young age, such as the Plaintiff.

④ The opinion of the court of the first instance is that, in the case of the first half of the first half of the first half of the first half of the first half of the year and the first half of the first half of the first half of the year, it is not likely that the first half of the first half of the year could not clearly disclose the first half of the first half of the first half of the year, and that the first half of the first half of the year would be natural protection due to preserved treatment, and it does not express the opinion that the first half of the first half of the year was on the first half of the first half of the year, but rather, even if the second half of the case was started due to the king of the first half of the year, the second half of the year

3) Therefore, the instant disposition based on a different premise is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, so it is revoked, and it is so decided as per Disposition to cancel the disposition of this case.

The presiding judge, judge and Dong judge

Judges Sedroe

Judges Lee So-young