The meaning of Article 73-2 (1) of the former Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State and the meaning of "the person who was killed or wounded due to the person's negligence or his/her negligence concurrently due to the person's negligence without any inevitable reason" and

Article 73-2(1) of the former Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (amended by Act No. 11041, Sep. 15, 201; hereinafter “the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State”) provides for the requirements of a person eligible for support as “a person who was killed or wounded due to his/her own negligence or his/her own negligence without any inevitable reason, or due to concurrent cause.” Of these circumstances, “unfavorable cause” refers to a cause which has no choice but to take place as a cause even if a disaster or injury could occur, in light of all the circumstances, such as the status of a soldier or police officer at the time of a disaster, the duty or education and training performed at the time of the disaster, and the developments leading to a disaster. Here, “unfavorable cause” is commonly prescribed in Articles 4(6)1 and 73-2(1) of the Act on the Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State.

In addition, "a person who died or was injured due to concurrent causes" among the requirements of a person eligible for support refers to cases where the occurrence of a disaster was predicted or avoided by his/her negligence or his/her negligence, but his/her negligence was involved and the occurrence of a disaster or the expansion of the difference caused thereby. Here, "the principal's negligence" refers not to all the principal's negligence at the time of the occurrence of the disaster, but to the subsidiary's negligence directly related to the expansion of the occurrence or the occurrence of

As such, Article 73-2(1) of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State refers to cases where a disaster occurs due to one’s own negligence or due to a concurrent cause for which one’s own negligence or his/her own negligence is concurrent without any inevitable reason, without any objective circumstance, which is bound to take place as a underlying act despite the possibility of a disaster or wound, or where the difference is expanded due to one’s negligence, and the burden of proof thereof is against

Article 4(1)6, (6)1, and Article 73-2(1) of the former Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (Amended by Act No. 11041, Sep. 15, 201); Article 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [Liability for Certification]

Supreme Court Decision 2011Du26589 Decided August 22, 2013 (Gong2013Ha, 1707)

Plaintiff (Attorney Choi Jong-il, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of the Jeonbuk-dong Veterans Branch Office

Gwangju High Court ( Jeonju) Decision 2015Nu948 decided January 18, 2016

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. A. Article 4(1)6 of the former Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (amended by Act No. 11041, Sept. 15, 201; hereinafter “the Act”) provides that “A soldier or police officer who was wounded in the course of education and training or in the performance of duty (including illness in the line of duty) and discharged from military service or retired from military service as one of the persons who rendered distinguished service to the State shall be deemed to have suffered physical disability falling within that degree of injury under Article 6-4 in a physical examination conducted by the Minister of Patriots and Veterans Affairs” and Article 4(6)1 of the same Act provides that “Where a soldier or police officer was discharged from military service due to an intentional or gross negligence on the part of the person who rendered distinguished service to the State without any inevitable reason, or where he was seriously in violation

In addition, Article 73-2 (1) of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State shall exclude a person who was killed or wounded due to his/her negligence or negligence concurrently with another person's death or wound (hereinafter "Death or wound" in this Article), who meets the requirements under Article 4 (1) 5, 6, 13 or 14, and whose bereaved family member or family member is registered pursuant to Articles 4 (1) and 6 without any inevitable reason, from persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State, their bereaved family member, or their family member, but where he/she died (including where the person died prior to an application for registration under Article 6 (1) after having been discharged from military service or retired from military service by suffering from wounds) or was wounded due to reasons corresponding to the criteria for his/her official duty, the Minister of Patriots and Veterans Affairs shall compensate his/her bereaved family member or wounded person and his/her family member by applying mutatis mutandis the provisions of Articles 9 and 11 through 62.

B. Article 73-2(1) of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State stipulates the requirements of a person eligible for support as “a person who was killed or wounded due to a concurrent cause with his/her own negligence or his/her own negligence without any inevitable reason.” Among them, “unfavorable reason” refers to a cause which inevitably led to an act which caused a disaster or a wound despite the possibility of disaster or a wound, in light of all circumstances, such as the status of the relevant soldier or police officer, etc. at the time of the accident, the duty or education and training performed at the time, and the details of the accident occurrence. Here, “unfavorable reason” is commonly stipulated in Articles 4(6)1 and 73-2(1) of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State, and where a person’s intentional or gross negligence is involved, it may be recognized as a person of distinguished service to the State, and thus, an inevitable reason should be strictly construed in light of objective circumstances as an exceptional

In addition, "a person who died or was injured due to concurrent causes" among the requirements of a person eligible for support refers to cases where a disaster occurs or a wound is expanded due to his or her negligence, although he or she could have predicted or avoided the occurrence of a disaster, regardless of his or her negligence, he or she's negligence. Here, "the principal's negligence" refers not to all the principal's negligence at the time of the occurrence of the disaster, but to cases where he or she is directly related to the expansion of the occurrence or wound.

As such, Article 73-2(1) of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State refers to cases where a disaster occurs due to one’s own negligence or due to a concurrent cause for which one’s own negligence or his/her own negligence without any inevitable reason is concurrent, regardless of the possibility of a disaster or wound, or where the occurrence of an accident or the act caused by the cause is expanded without any objective reason, and the burden of proof therefor shall be deemed to be the disposition agency (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du26589, Aug. 22, 2013).

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that: (a) sports games have a risk of causing harm to ordinary body; and (b) in particular, a stable competition has a duty of care to safely protect one’s body by predicting such various risks in advance; (c) if a player was injured due to neglect to do so, it is reasonable to deem that he/she was injured due to concurrent causes between his/her own negligence and his/her own negligence; and (b) the Plaintiff’s disposition was lawful in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff, who was able to stop the sports games, was physically different from the other players; and (d) the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff was able to have suffered from the instant wound because he/she had failed to perform his/her duty of care due to an inevitable reason, such as the other player’s non-performance act to prevent it; and (b) the Plaintiff’s failure to perform his/her duty of care due to an inevitable reason, such as the Plaintiff’s failure to exercise his/her duty of care to avoid it.

3. Examining the records in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court’s determination is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence by recognizing facts contrary to logical and empirical rules

4. 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 Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)