2013Guly 3349 Persons of Distinguished Service to the State (persons eligible for veteran's compensation)

A

Head of Daegu Regional Veterans Administration

December 12, 200

January 16, 2015

1. On August 30, 2013, the Defendant’s disposition that the Plaintiff rendered against the Plaintiff as a person eligible for veteran’s compensation is revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, 50% is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

On August 30, 2013, the decision that the defendant rendered a disposition to the plaintiff as a person who rendered distinguished services to the State and as a person eligible for veteran's compensation is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 6, 2011, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was discharged from military service on June 13, 2012, when serving in the sixth Class B of the Military Service.

B. On September 19, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration with the Defendant for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State, on the basis of the difference between the Defendant’s check and the post- check, the post- check, the post- check, and the prone unstable in the direction (hereinafter “instant award”).

C. On March 14, 2013, following the deliberation of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement, the Defendant rendered a disposition against the Plaintiff on the ground that there is no proximate causal relation with the military performance of official duties, and thus, the Defendant did not constitute a person of distinguished services to the State and a person eligible for veteran

D. On April 5, 2013, the Plaintiff submitted additional data and filed an application for reexamination. However, the Defendant rendered a non-specific decision on the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that: (a) with respect to the Plaintiff on August 30, 2013 through a review by the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement; (b) the Plaintiff had been suffering from pre-entry in the military; and (c) there was no apparent causal link between the two wounds and the military performance of official duties; and (d) there

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2 (including provisional number), Eul evidence 1 through 6, 15, and 18, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Around July 6, 2011, the Plaintiff entered the military hospital upon the first level of active duty enlistment determination in the military where he was found to have become aware of the 40 days after the surgery, and there was no more than a big number of the shoulder. Around July 6, 2011, during the new military training course, the military hospital received formal treatment and continued to receive training in the military hospital even though the unit commander was in an emergency at the site, while he was under the training. After that, the Plaintiff was able to undergo a surgery at the private hospital on October 4, 2011 after he was transferred to the hospital. However, the Plaintiff could not be forced to immediately release from the hospital to return to the hospital on 40 days after the surgery, and the Plaintiff was unable to undergo proper treatment and management during the military service process, which led to a sudden causal causal relation between the Defendant’s symptoms and the previous military service. Therefore, the Plaintiff was found to have been found to have been in a sudden causal relation in the instant case due to the deterioration and aggravation of military service.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) "A soldier or police officer wounded in the course of performing his/her duties or education and training (including diseases in official duties)" under Article 4 (1) 6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State means that a soldier or police officer wounded or ill in the course of performing his/her duties or during education and training. Therefore, in order to be different from the above provision, there is a proximate causal relation between the performance of duties or education and the injury or disease, and the causal relation between the performance of duties, etc. must be proved by the claimant. However, the causal relation does not necessarily have to be proved clearly in medical and natural science, but it is presumed that there is a proximate causal relation between the performance of duties or education and training, and the injury or disease. In addition, the determination of the causal relation should be made based on the average condition of the soldier's physical assistance, such as the injury or disease, not on the duty or education and training, and on the basis of the average condition of the soldier's physical assistance.

2) Each of the evidence mentioned in the instant case, Gap evidence Nos. 3-1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 7 through 14, 16, and 17, and each of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively considering the result of physical examination and the overall purport of the pleadings as a result of the request for physical examination of the head of the Gyeongbuk University Hospital in this Court and the result of the request for the supplementation of the evidence, i.e., ① the plaintiff was under medical treatment on three occasions between the 23th day of the same month and the 25th day of the same month due to the accident that occurred beyond stairs, etc. before the entrance, and even according to the plaintiff's assertion, it is recognized that there was symptoms that the above medical treatment had not been sufficiently increased since the entrance into the military during the instant training process, and that the plaintiff was not subject to the above 10th day after the entrance into the military and had not been subject to the above 1st day of training since the entrance into the military.

3) Therefore, there is a proximate causal relationship between the occurrence of the instant wound and the performance of duties or education and training during the military service. As seen above, the Plaintiff appears to have caused the instant wound at the expense of the right shoulder in the process of providing new disease training and the overall process of performing duties thereafter. As a soldier, “military personnel” under Article 3 [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, who is responsible for the State, has no clear evidence to acknowledge that there was a direct action or other direct action of persons of distinguished service to the State (such as patrol, trial, examination, inspection, handling of hazardous substances, such as chemical substances, etc. in the course of disaster, rescue, relief from disaster, etc., and thus, there was no evidence to acknowledge that there was a direct action or other similar direct action of persons of distinguished service to the State (the pertinent part of persons of distinguished service to the State) in terms of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the disposition of this case which did not correspond to the requirements of a person eligible for veteran's compensation is unlawful, the part seeking the cancellation of the above disposition among the plaintiff's claims of this case is accepted, and the remaining claims seeking the cancellation of the above disposition are dismissed as it is without merit

Judges Park Jong-young

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.