208Guhap2607 Disposition of revocation of a disposition to deny a person of distinguished service to the State

P (56 years old, South)

Attorney Lee Tae-hwan, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

The Commissioner of Busan Regional Veterans Administration

December 11, 2008

January 22, 2009

1. The Defendant’s disposition that rendered against the Plaintiff on April 18, 2008 was revoked as non-applicable to a person of distinguished service to the State. 2. Costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff is newly appointed as a local public official on March 22, 1982 and currently served as a local administrative assistant at the XX branch office in Kimhae-si.

B. The Plaintiff asserted that, among the official duties, the Plaintiff received surgery treatment by suffering from the injury such as the Oral Change of Satoma and the Coordinate Roster Mascule Macule Macule Macule Macul (hereinafter “the injury in this case”), etc., and filed an application for registration with the Defendant on January 3, 2008. On April 18, 2008, the Defendant, following the deliberation and resolution of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement, submitted to the Plaintiff on April 18, 2008, on the ground that “the Plaintiff did not keep the documents, etc. related to the approval of medical care for the Plaintiff in the official duties of the Public Official Pension Management Corporation, so it cannot be recognized that the injury in this case was caused during the performance of official duties,” on the ground that the Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff of the relevant decision corresponding to the requirements for registration

【Reasons for Recognition】

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case was unlawful, although it is obvious that the injury of this case was caused by Obaba accident during the performance of official duties, and the defendant did not objectively verify the situation where the injury of this case occurred, and even if the plaintiff's assertion was made, it is difficult to find a proximate causal relation between the injury of this case and the performance of official duties. Thus, the disposition of this case is lawful.

(b) Related statutes;

[The Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (hereinafter referred to as the "Act")] Article 4

(1) Persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and their bereaved family members (including persons specified by any other Act as persons eligible for honorable treatment, etc. under this Act) shall be entitled to honorable treatment under this Act:

14. Public officials who died on duty: Public officials (excluding military personnel and police officers) prescribed in Article 2 of the State Public Officials Act and Article 2 of the Local Public Officials Act, and employees prescribed by Presidential Decree who ordinarily engage in official duties in the State or a local government, and are judged 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;

(6) Where a person meeting the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished service to the State under paragraph (1) 3 through 6, 13 or 14 dies or is wounded due to any of the following causes, he/she shall be excluded from persons who have rendered distinguished service to the State, their bereaved family members or families to be registered pursuant to paragraph

1. Where the person's intention or gross negligence is caused by the principal's gross negligence or seriously violates any relevant statute or an order of his/her superior without any inevitable reason;

2. Where it is caused by an accident or disaster while he deserts his official duties; and

3. Where a private act which cannot be deemed as a performance of duties, such as a disaster or fighting, has caused it;

4. Where self-harm is done.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) At around 17:10 on April 15, 1988, the Plaintiff served as an administrative secretary with 00 on the Kimhae-si, Kim Jong-si, and completed a business trip such as the communication of promotional materials related to the election of the National Assembly members, and was sent back to the relevant hospital due to the Otoba divers of Oba (hereinafter “traffic accident in this case”). On April 16, 1988, the Plaintiff was discharged from the hospital under the diagnosis of Janan-si Ma-si Ma-si Ma-si, and was hospitalized for hospital treatment.

(2) The Plaintiff applied to the Public Official Pension Corporation for the recognition of the injury caused by the instant traffic accident as an official wound, and the Public Official Pension Corporation approved the injury and injury caused by official duty after deliberation on August 3, 198.

(3) According to the review of the expenses of medical care for the plaintiff of the Public Officials Pension Corporation, the name of the sick and wounded: The name of the deceased: The name of the deceased and the first class of the disease; the name of the deceased and the first class of the disease; the accident situation; the accident situation during the business trip; the name of the accident: the accident type; the name of the accident: the accident in the business trip; the name of the accident: the accident in the business trip; the name of the accident: the accident in the business trip; the name of the accident: the traffic accident on August 3, 198; the classification of the decision: the resolution; the date of medical care commencement; the term "date of medical care: 15 April 15, 198; : : 196.3; 50 days; the documents related to the above review are not preserved

(4) Results of fact-finding on Kimhae market

(A) From January 11, 1985, the Plaintiff was working for Kimhae-si 00 and agricultural village, and was working for the agricultural village. On April 15, 1988, the Plaintiff was confirmed to have delivered promotional materials related to the election to the village of the village of the village of the village of the 14:00 to 18:00 after receiving an order for a business trip from 14:0 to 15:00 after having worked for the normal work.

(B) In order to apply for approval of medical care for official duties, a statement of reasons on the day of the accident is prepared and documents proving the accident (such as a business trip order book, work log, work-related documents, etc.) is attached. Therefore, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff was approved for medical care on the ground of the above date’s accident, the above business trip is confirmed.

(c)In order to obtain approval from the Public Official Pension Service as an official or on duty, if a public official or his bereaved family member who suffered physical damage prepares a written claim for accident compensation benefits due to a public official or on duty and submits it as an affiliated agency, the head of the affiliated agency shall confirm the requirements and supporting documents that can be recognized as a disaster due to official duty, prepare a statement of reasons for the accident compensation, and send it to the Public Official Pension Service together with the relevant documents, and accordingly, the Public Official Pension Service shall undergo procedures to determine whether to approve

(5) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff did not report the occurrence of the instant traffic accident to police or insurance companies.

【Reasons for Recognition】

D. Determination

In light of the following circumstances, it seems evident that the Plaintiff’s injury was due to the instant traffic accident, i.e., the Plaintiff’s injury, and there was no other cause, and the Plaintiff applied for approval of medical care for official duties, attaching a statement of circumstance and supporting documents, etc. at the time of the occurrence of the instant traffic accident, and the injury of this case was recognized as due to the Plaintiff’s occupational accident through the two-stage examination procedure of the head of affiliated agency and the Public Official Pension Corporation. Accordingly, the Public Official Pension Corporation received an application for approval of medical care for official duties, and there was no objective data that can specifically identify the circumstance of the occurrence of the injury of this case, but there was no content on the degree that the injury occurred due to the Plaintiff’s intentional or gross negligence during the business trip. However, Article 4(6)1 of the Act provides that the traffic accident of this case was caused by the Plaintiff’s intentional or gross negligence without any inevitable reason excluded from persons of distinguished service, and thus, it cannot be deemed that it constitutes the Plaintiff’s gross negligence or gross negligence.

Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case, which stated that it is difficult to recognize the causal relationship between the instant wounds and the performance of official duties, on a different premise, is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

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

The effects of the presiding judge and judges;

Judges Kang Jin-ju

Judges Park Jong-sung