[1] Method of interpreting the meaning of subordinate statutes

[2] The meaning of "a person who clearly shows emulsion in the examination of X-ray photographs, etc. despite appropriate treatment" under Article 8-3 [Attachment 4] of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State.

[1] A subordinate statute shall be interpreted to conform to the superior statute by comprehensively examining the contents, legislative intent, and history of the pertinent statute, except where the statute clearly conflicts with the superior statute and becomes null and void.

[2] Article 6-4(1) and (3) of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, Article 14(2) and (3) [Attachment Table 3] of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, and Article 8-3 [Attachment Table 4] of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State based on the contents and legislative intent of [Attachment Table 4] of Article 8-3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, refers to a person who clearly shows eromatic eromatic 7th 8122 of the Decree in relation to disability in Article 14(3) [Attachment 3] of the Enforcement Rule of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State.”

[1] Articles 75 and 95 of the Constitution / [2] Article 6-4 (1) and (3) of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, Article 14 (2) and (3) [Attachment 3] of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, Article 8-3 [Attachment 4] of

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2010Du3527 Decided October 25, 2012 (Gong2012Ha, 1952)

Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Jae-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Commissioner of Daejeon Regional Veterans Administration

Daejeon High Court Decision 2015Nu12739 decided January 21, 2016

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. A subordinate statute shall be interpreted to conform to the superior statute by comprehensively examining the content, legislative intent, and history of the relevant statute, except where the relevant provision clearly conflicts with the superior statute and becomes invalid (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du3527, Oct. 25, 2012).

Article 6-4 (1) of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that "the disability rating of persons subject to physical examinations under Article 6-3 (1) shall be determined according to the degree of their disability, classified into Grade 1, Grade 2, Grade 3, Grade 4, Grade 5, Grade 6, and Grade 7, and Article 6-4 (3) of the same Act provides that "necessary matters concerning the classification, determination, etc. of disability ratings under paragraph (1) shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree." Article 14 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter referred to as the "Decree") provides that "the method of determining physical disability and method of measuring physical disability disorders shall be prescribed by Ordinance of the Prime Minister," and Article 6-4 (3) provides that "the classification of disability ratings according to the degree of physical disability shall be as specified in attached Table 3." Accordingly, [Attachment 3] shall be defined in Section 3 of the category of disability.

Meanwhile, Article 8-3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, etc. under the re-delegation of Article 14(2) of the Decree (hereinafter “Enforcement Rule”) provides that “The determination of a disability rating for bodily injuries according to Article 14(2) of the Decree shall be in accordance with the criteria prescribed in attached Table 4.” Accordingly, the determination of a disability rating for physical parts shall be based on [Attachment Table 4] from the item of “8. Bridges and salkings disability, disability rating content...........................” as the disability contents in [Attachment Table 3] of Article 14(3) [Attachment 7] of the Decree from the item of “the disability and salking

However, on the sole basis of the language and text of Article 8-3 [Attachment 4] of the Enforcement Rule, if the change after credit due to damage to the pel ray clearly appeared in the examination of the EX ray, regardless of whether there is any disorder in light of the EX 3 [Attachment Table 3] of Article 14(3) [Attachment Table 7] and 8122 of the Decree, it is interpreted that the disability rating falls under the disability rating under Article 8-3 [Attachment Table 4] of the Enforcement Rule, regardless of whether there is any disorder in light of the EX 3] of Article 6-4(3) of the Act, the "persons with disabilities in light of the three major sections of the 3rd joints of one bridge" is divided into Grade 7-8122 of the disability rating and the general criteria for the determination of disability rating under Article 14(3) [Attachment 3] of the Enforcement Rule, and the above interpretation can immediately be contrary to the legislative purport of Article 14(2) [Attachment 3] of the Enforcement Rule 4] of the Enforcement Rule, even if there is any change in the EX 3].

Therefore, based on the legal principles on the interpretation of the above subordinate statutes and the contents and legislative purport of the above relevant provisions, if the meaning of the disability in Article 8-3 [Attachment Table 4] of the Enforcement Rule as to the disability in Articles 14(3) [Attachment Table 3] 7-7 and 8122 of the Decree is interpreted in an organic and systematic manner as follows: (a) where the change after credit due to damage to the pel ray occurs in the inspection, such as X-ray photographing, regardless of appropriate treatment, it is reasonable to interpret that “the person who clearly shows that the change after credit due to damage to the pel ray occurs in the inspection, such as X-ray photographing, and thereby has a defect in the Do's function.”

2. Nevertheless, the lower court, despite appropriate treatment, determined to the effect that the Plaintiff’s injury constitutes class 7-81222 of the disability rating on the premise that the injury of the Plaintiff’s injury constitutes a case where a change after credit due to damage to EXE shows e-mail in the examination, such as X-ray shooting, by itself, falls under the category of 7-8122 of the disability rating. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on disability rating 7-8122 of the disability rating as prescribed in Article 14(3) [Attachment 3] of the Enforcement Rule and Article 8-3 [Attachment 4] of the Enforcement Rule

3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)