[1] In a lawsuit seeking revocation of a disposition that constitutes a requirement for a person who has rendered distinguished service to the State for a number of wounds, the scope of revocation of a disposition that constitutes a requirement for a person who has rendered distinguished service to the State

[2] In a case where Gap filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition on the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished services to the State on a bridge injury and mental disorder symptoms, the case holding that the judgment below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the recognition of the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished services to the State, even though proximate causal relation is acknowledged between the occurrence of mental disorder and military service, and there is no proximate causal relation cannot be found in the case where the person who rendered distinguished services to the State was wholly canceled without cancelling only the part on symptoms of mental disorder among the corresponding disposition

[1] Articles 4(1)6, 6(2) and (3), 6-3(1), and 6-4 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State; Articles 9(4), 10(1), (3), and 14(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State / [2] Articles 4(1)6, 6(2) and (3), 6-3(1), and 6-4 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State; Articles 9(4), 10(1), (3), and 14(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State

Plaintiff (Law Firm Love, Attorneys Kim Yong-jin, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Secretary of the Office of Government Veterans Affairs

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Nu16686 decided October 25, 201

The part of the judgment of the court below regarding the disposition on the person who rendered distinguished services to the State against the instant bridge injury is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to Seoul High Court. The defendant's appeal on the mental disorder of this case is dismissed.

1. We examine the judgment on the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal ex officio.

Article 4(1)6 (hereinafter “Act on the Honorable Treatment of and Support for Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State” means that military personnel or police officers are injured or ill during education and training or in the performance of their duties. Thus, in order to be injured as prescribed by the above provision, there is a proximate causal relation between education and training or in the performance of their duties and the injury or disease thereof (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du6772, Sept. 6, 2007, etc.). Accordingly, where an application for registration is filed in relation to an injury or disease in the course of education and training or in the performance of their duties, the “written confirmation of facts related to the requirements for persons of distinguished services to the State, etc.” verified and notified by the head of the agency to which they belong shall be stated in accordance with Article 6(2)6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of and Support for Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State, Article 6(1)6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Protection of and Support for Persons of Distinguished Services to the State.

In the process of confirming the facts related to the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished service to the State by claiming several wounds at the time of application for registration of persons who have rendered distinguished service to the State, including the content, form, and legislative intent of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, it shall be examined as to whether each wound constitutes the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished service to the State. Accordingly, it shall not be conducted in physical examinations to determine disability rating for persons who have been wounded or who have not been recognized as the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished service to the State. Furthermore, it shall be reasonable to view that the applicant who filed an application for registration of persons who have rendered distinguished service to the State by asserting several wounds, not merely in registering as persons who have rendered distinguished service to the State, but rather in seeking registration as persons who have sustained distinguished service to the State. In addition, it shall be reasonable to view that the applicant’s intention to apply for registration of persons who have rendered distinguished service to the State is not merely in registering as persons who have rendered distinguished service to the State, but rather in registering as persons who have sustained distinguished service to the State.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, with respect to the plaintiff's seeking revocation of the disposition that constitutes the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State on the bridge injury and the symptoms of mental illness, the court below revoked the whole disposition that constitutes the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State on the ground that there is a proximate causal relation between the occurrence of the mental disorder of this case and the plaintiff's military service. However, in the case of the bridge injury of this case, the proximate causal relation cannot be acknowledged, but without any distinction from each of the above differences. However, according to the above legal principles, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the recognition of the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State on the bridge injury of this case among the dispositions that constitute the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State. Furthermore, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the revocation of the whole disposition including the part on the bridge injury of this case including the part on the bridge injury of this case. Furthermore, examining the records, it cannot be deemed that the disease of this case was caused or aggravated due to the plaintiff's military education or duty.

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal on the mental disorder of this case

Examining the records in light of the relevant legal principles, the court below’s determination that proximate causal relation between the mental disorder of this case and the Plaintiff’s military service is recognized is acceptable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on proximate causal relation, etc., which affected the judgment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, among the judgment of the court below, the part on the disposition corresponding to the requirements of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State on the instant bridge injury is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The defendant's appeal regarding the mental disorder of this case is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating

Justices Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)