In a case where a veterinarian belonging to the Gun Office made an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease prevention vaccination against Gap's possession, and where Gap filed a claim for compensation pursuant to the Contagious Animal Disease Prevention Act, but the head of the competent Gun rejected the claim for compensation based on the guidelines of the Minister for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, the case holding that a disposition based on the above guidelines which goes beyond the scope of delegation of the Act and is invalid.

In a case where a veterinarian belonging to the Maritime Affairs and Fisheries applied for compensation pursuant to the Prevention of Contagious Diseases Act (hereinafter “Act”), and the head of the competent Gun, upon the death of the cream cream cream cream cream cream cream cream cream cream cream cream cream cream cream cream cream cream cream cream cream cream cream cream cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl cl, but cl cl.

Articles 15(1) and 48(1)1 of the Prevention of Contagious Animal Diseases Act, Article 11(1) [Attachment Table 1] and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Prevention of Contagious Animal Diseases Act

[Judgment of the court below]

The Southern Gun;

May 19, 2015

1. The Defendant’s disposition rejecting compensation payment made against the Plaintiff on May 2, 2014 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who raises Korea-do in the South-west Sea-gun ( Address omitted).

B. On February 21, 2012, a public veterinarian affiliated with the South Navy visited the Plaintiff’s livestock shed to contact with the 7th head of Han-do, one of whom he owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant vaccination”).

C. On April 30, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for the payment of compensation under the Contagious Animal Disease Prevention Act, stating that “one of the Plaintiff-owned only (hereinafter referred to as “the Plaintiff-owned only”) died at a shock show caused by the instant vaccination on February 23, 2012.” However, on May 2, 2014, the Defendant rejected the claim against the Plaintiff for the payment of the said compensation for the following reasons (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

In relation to the “recover livestock industry included in the main text and the “recoverage and AI slaughter prompt payment plan” in 11717 (e.g., May 26, 201), according to the transition of back-of-the-recoverage, compensation for back-the-recover damage from June 1, 2011 to the relief station is abolished, and the demand for new application for a thickness is not possible.

D. Meanwhile, on May 26, 2011, the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs notified the head of the metropolitan organization, including the Do governor, of the plan to prompt payment of burial compensation, along with the “plan to prompt payment of burial compensation”, to the effect that the Minister may request the measures to facilitate the payment of burial compensation in order to support the recovery through early re-entryation by the remedy station and AI damaged farmers. On May 26, 201, on May 26, 2011, the Gyeongnam-do governor notified the head of the local government in the Gyeongnam-do, including the Defendant, of the “plan to prompt payment of burial compensation” (Article 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the Prevention of Contagious Animal Diseases Act (attached Table 1). According to the “plan to prompt payment of burial compensation”, among the compensation pursuant to the provisions of subparagraph 1(a) of subparagraph 1(a) of the same Article, the compensation for back from June 1, 2011.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 1 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since Korea-Japan died due to the side effects of the vaccination of this case, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the compensation for the instant oriental medicine pursuant to the Contagious Animal Disease Prevention Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. Nevertheless, the Defendant, based on the guidelines of this case, abolished the back of the back-to-date compensation for losses caused by the back-time back-of-the-counter marriage, based on the guidelines of this case. The guidelines of this case provide that no compensation for losses caused by the back-of-the-counter marriage shall be paid in violation of the Contagious Animal Disease Prevention Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which are superior laws and subordinate statutes, and thus, the dispositions of this case based on this

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Whether the instant guidelines violate the superior laws and regulations

A) Articles 15(1) and 48(1)1 of the Contagious Animal Disease Prevention Act provide that “The Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, the Mayor/Do Governor, or the head of a Si/Gun/autonomous Gu may order the owner of livestock, etc. to take measures, such as injection, in order to prevent the outbreak or spread of contagious animal diseases, and the State or a local government shall pay compensation to the owner of livestock who died or injured due to the above injection, etc., as prescribed by Presidential Decree.” Article 11(1) [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that “the standards and methods for the payment of compensation” and Article 11(2) of the same Act provides that “The criteria and methods for the evaluation of livestock, etc. according to the standards for the payment of compensation under paragraph (1), standards for calculation of appraised values by type of livestock, and other detailed matters concerning evaluation of livestock

B) According to the above provisions, the State or local governments shall pay compensation within the limit of 80/100 of the appraised value of the livestock at the time of vaccination of the dead livestock due to the vaccination of the foot-and-mouth disease. The Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs may determine the criteria and methods for the assessment of livestock, standards for calculating appraised value by type of livestock, and other detailed matters concerning the assessment of livestock, and there is no authority to limit the scope of “compensation subject to compensation” under each subparagraph of Article 48(1) of the same Act. However, since the guidelines of this case include the abolition of the payment of compensation for back-and-mouth damage from June 1, 201 to the foot-and-mouth disease prevention Act and the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Prevention of Contagious Animal Diseases delegated to the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, based on the premise that the criteria for payment of compensation under each subparagraph of Article 48(1) [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act are subject to the delegation of the above Act.

2) Determination on the Defendant’s additional assertion of grounds for disposition

The Defendant added the grounds for the disposition that the instant disposition was lawful on the ground that “the instant vaccination had no medical problem, and the death of Han-ri was due to the side effects of secondary infections due to non-sanitary livestock environment, rather than the side effects of vaccination, and thus does not constitute the subject of compensation.” However, the aforementioned grounds for the disposition are different from the original grounds for the disposition, its contents and purport, and it cannot be deemed that the basic facts are identical. Therefore, the Defendant is not allowed to add the above grounds for the disposition. Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion on this part is without merit without having to further examine it.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment] Relevant Statutes: omitted

Judges Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Judge)

1) The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs has changed the names of the Ministry of Fisheries, Agriculture and Forestry, and the Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries several times.