1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for adding the following judgments, thereby citing this as is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on the part concerning the claim for revocation of a decision corresponding to the person who rendered distinguished service to the State

A. Article 4(1)6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (amended by Act No. 11041, Sept. 15, 201; hereinafter “the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc.”) stipulates that the former Act on the Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State does not expressly provide for different performance of duties or education and training concerning different persons, the nature of performance of duties or education and training must be directly related to “national defense, security, or protection of the lives and property of the people.” In this regard, the nature of performance of duties or education and training performed by a soldier or police officer is distinguishable from Article 2(1)2 of the Act on the Support for Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (amended by Act No. 11042, Sep. 15, 2011; hereinafter “the Act on the Honorable Compensation for Persons, Etc.

In addition, considering the above statutory provisions, Article 3(1) [Attachment 1] 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State, Article 2(1) [Attachment 1] 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State, legislative background, differences in the text and text of the provisions on the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State and the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State, “the direct cause relationship” necessary to be recognized as a soldier or policeman on duty under the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State is not sufficient to simply have a proximate causal relation between duty performance

Supreme Court on August 30, 2016