2014Guhap4519 Revocation of a decision that constitutes a person of distinguished service to the State.

A person shall be appointed.

Chuncheon Head of Chuncheon Veterans Branch Office

December 5, 2014

January 30, 2015

1. On August 14, 2013, the Defendant’s disposition of non-conformity with a person who rendered distinguished service to the State and disposition of refusal of a person eligible for veteran’s compensation is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The order is as set forth in the text.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff’s husband’s husband B (hereinafter “the Deceased”) entered the Army on June 15, 2009 and entered the Army.

9. 30. 30. 30. 30. 3. 3. 660 Sick Team C served as a leader.

B. On March 3, 2012, the Deceased worked at the unit to which he belongs for the preparation of large-scale warehouse, and arranged the warehouse, and worked at the unit to which he belongs, and then took a rest with noncommissioned officers who were engaged in the same duties as at the time, including middle-scale D. D. On March 4, 2012: (a) on October 4, 2012; (b) on the right side of the Deceased’s face while talking with the Deceased outside of a singing room, and (c) on the same day on the same day, the Deceased died of 0:50 on the same day.

C. On April 16, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State and a person eligible for veteran’s compensation. On August 14, 2013, the Defendant rendered a decision on the deceased’s death as of August 14, 2013 on the ground that “the deceased’s death was caused by an accident that occurred during his/her private activities after work and does not constitute a deceased person due to his/her performance of duties or education and training directly related to national defense, security, and the protection of the people’s lives and property (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On November 8, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking the revocation of the instant disposition, and on March 11, 2014, the Presidential Anhman Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal.

【Uncontentious facts, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2 and Eul’s evidence No. 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On March 3, 2012, the deceased worked at the military unit belonging to the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, and performed a public duty to prepare for the heat in the large warehouse. On the proposal of the superior of the time, the deceased worked together with noncommissioned officers who performed public duties like D, who were the superior of the deceased, and went through a singing room. In the process of pointing out the shortage of D in connection with the deceased's work out of the music room, whether it would be possible for the deceased to go to D? . . . . . . . ... the deceased to go to the deceased by assaulting the deceased, and died. The deceased was on duty even after going to work, and after his performance of official duty, he was on duty, he was on the spot and on the spot, he was on the spot and on the spot, and he was on the spot and on the spot, he was on the part of his superior, and on the part of D's assault, the deceased's death and the disposition in this case is unlawful, even if there is a proximate causal relation between the deceased's.

B. Relevant statutes

The statutes related to the instant case shall be as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Facts of recognition

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to each description in Gap evidence of Nos. 4 through 8, Eul evidence of No. 2 through 5 (including the number of branches).

As the administrative diffusion officer, D is the next library E is the former shooting control officer, and the deceased, F, and G served as the staff.

B) On March 3, 2012, the Deceased, F, and G worked at the military unit to prepare for the heat of the large-scale warehouse scheduled as of March 5, 2012 and arranged the warehouse.

C) On March 3, 2012, E called the Deceased to check whether he worked in the office of others, and then told the Deceased to see that he was a defect in the staff meal. At around 17:00 on the same day, D reported the situation of the warehouse arrangement and confirmed the warehouse arranged, and then he heard the speech that E was to share the same meals.

D) On March 3, 2012: around 20: D, with his own vehicle, provided meals to a restaurant with a distance of 4 km away from the unit E, the Deceased, F, and G along with his own vehicle. D, with his own vehicle, proposed that he drinks alcohol while drinking, and d, d, with the deceased et al. divided the degree of eight illness of a week with the deceased et al.

E) On March 3, 2012: Around 00 Suppers, D, after completing meals, sent to E, the Deceased, F, and G, her in a singing room, and the following team, her in a singing room, went to the nearest singing room. Around 22:30 of the following day on the day of the day at the head of a Tong in the vicinity of the restaurant, including the Deceased.

F) On March 4, 2012: D, while drinking and singing in a singing room around 10: (a) took the deceased out of the singing room; (b) talked the deceased about his usual work and external behavior; and (c) took place to the deceased; and (d) took place with the deceased’s interest, D’s left face one time at the right side of the deceased’s speech.

G) On March 4, 2012, 00: around 20: 20: D had calculated the singing cost and had been singing together with the deceased, etc., and at around 00:50, D and E, the deceased was used in the front of the I livestock shed from among those on a road to go into a H apartment of the Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun, the residence of which was located, at around 00:50.

H) On May 24, 2012, D was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for one year and six months by imprisonment for the death or injury of deceased at the 1st Military Command General Military Court.

2) Determination

In order to constitute “the person who died during the performance of duties or education and training as referred to in Article 4(1)5 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State”, there is a proximate causal relationship between the performance of duties or the death of the person who died during education and training, and the causal relationship between the performance of duties and the death must be proved by the party who asserts it. However, such causal relationship does not necessarily have to be proved clearly by medical and natural science, but it is presumed that there is a proximate causal relationship between the performance of duties or education and training, and the death of the person who died during the performance of duties or education and training should be determined based on the health and physical conditions of the relevant soldier, not by the average person (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du280, May 13, 2011).

If a worker suffers from an accident while participating in an event or a meeting outside of the company, the overall process of the event or meeting is in the state of being controlled or managed by the employer in light of the circumstances such as the organizer, purpose, contents, number of participants, forcedness, methods of operation, burden of expenses, etc. of the event or meeting, if it is recognized that the overall process of the event or meeting is in the state of being controlled or managed by the employer under social norms, and the worker is in a state of not deviating from the net course of the event or meeting, it can be recognized as an occupational accident (see Supreme Court Decisions 97-7271, Aug. 29, 1997; 2007Du6717, Nov. 15, 207). If it is at issue whether the event or meeting held under the overall control of the original employer has been terminated, it shall be determined reasonably by taking account of some simple circumstances, and it shall not be determined that it conforms to the purpose of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State, such as promotion and improvement in the welfare of Act (see Article 20088).

Based on the above facts, the deceased was able to know the facts, i.e., to prepare for warehouse heat in the unit: (a) to work with other noncommissioned officers on March 3, 2012, a Saturday, and (b) to work in the unit; (c) the executive officers of the deceased were defective; (d) the senior executives of the deceased were present at the unit at the lower school, including D, a superior; (c) the senior officers of the deceased and E, F, and G were present at the lower school; (d) the deceased et al. were friendly to the deceased et al.; (d) all noncommissioned officers of the deceased, including the deceased, who were at the middle school of the day of their own meal; and (d) the deceased did not have any assault with a superior of the deceased during their singing; and (d) the deceased did not have any assault with a superior of the deceased during his official’s singing service; and (d) the deceased did not have any knowledge of the deceased’s ability to attend the meeting; and (d) the deceased’s news and the deceased’s performance of official.

Therefore, the instant disposition based on a different premise is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

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

The presiding judge's lecture number

Judges Lee Jin-hee

Judges Lee Jin-jin

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.