[1] Whether a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State falls under the scope of recognition of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State under the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (negative)

[2] Whether a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State satisfies the requirements of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State in a case where it may be acknowledged that an existing disease was partially related to, or affected by, the occurrence or aggravation of the pertinent disease (affirmative)

[3] In a lawsuit seeking revocation of a non-existence of the requirements for a person who rendered distinguished services to the State for various wounds, if the requirements for a person who rendered distinguished services to the State are recognized as only some of the wounds, whether only the part concerning the wounds for which the requirements are recognized should be revoked

[1] In full view of Article 4(1)6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “the Act”), Article 2(1)2 of the Act on Support for Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State, Article 3(1) [Attachment 1]2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State, and Article 2(1) [Attachment 1]2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Support for Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State, legislative developments, and differences in the language and text of the Act on Support for Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State, Article 2(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Support for Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State, and Article 2(1) [Attachment 1] 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Support for Persons of Distinguished Services to the State, which

Therefore, even if the performance of duties or education and training has partly affected the death or wound, it is difficult to view that it falls under the scope of recognition of the requirements of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State, in cases where a person’s negligence or private circumstance is significantly competing with the cause of the occurrence of his/her own negligence or private circumstance, mainly due to his/her physical talent or living habits, or where an existing disease is partially aggravated due to his/her performance of duties or education and training, etc.

[2] Article 3(1) [Attachment Table 1] 2-8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (hereinafter “Attachment Table 2-8”) provides that one of the criteria for recognition of persons of distinguished service to the State shall be deemed as performance of their duties or education and training (such as the maintenance, distribution, transport, and management of munitions, such as military boundaries, search, clothes, equipment, and materials, and actual skill, practice, education and training, etc. directly related thereto, and medically recognized diseases have occurred due to their direct cause,” and Article 3(1)2-8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State provides that “if an existing disease has occurred or aggravated, it shall be excluded from the case where an existing disease has occurred or aggravated due to an existing one’s own injury or disease caused by an existing accident or accident, and thus, it shall be excluded from the case where an existing one’s main cause related to education and training can be interpreted as “the existing one’s own injury or disease”.

[3] The interpretation of relevant statutes, such as Article 4(1)6, Article 6-3(1), and Article 6-4 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, should be interpreted. If the requirements for a person of distinguished service to the State are recognized only for some of the wounds in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a non-existence of the requirements for a person of distinguished service to the State for several wounds, only the part concerning the difference to which the requirements of a person of distinguished

[1] Article 4 (1) 6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, Article 3 (1) [Attachment 1] 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, Article 2 (1) 2 of the Act on Support for Persons of Distinguished Service to the State, Article 2 (1) [Attachment 1] 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Support for Persons of Distinguished Service to the State / [2] Article 4 (1) 6 of the Act on Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, Article 3 (1) [Attachment 1] / [3] Article 4 (1) 6, Article 6-3 (1),

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2015Du4694 Decided July 27, 2016 (Gong2016Ha, 1263), Supreme Court Decision 2014Du42896 Decided August 18, 2016 (Gong2016Ha, 1364) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 2011Du9263 Decided March 29, 2012 (Gong2012Sang, 696)

Plaintiff (Attorney Choi Jae-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The head of Gwangju Regional Veterans Administration

Gwangju High Court Decision 2014Nu5674 decided October 30, 2014

1. The part of the judgment of the court below regarding the non-conformity of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State against the main blood pressure is reversed, and the plaintiff's appeal against this part is dismissed.

2. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. One-fourth of the total litigation costs shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Whether the Coordinate-centered net salt satisfies the requirements for persons of distinguished service to the State (ground of appeal No. 2)

A. Unlike the former 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 “former Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State”), Article 4(1)6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons of Distinguished Services to the State”) provides as one of the requirements to recognize persons of distinguished services to the State, such as soldiers or police officers who suffered injuries (including diseases) directly related to the performance of duties or education and training directly related to the national defense and security or to the protection of lives and property of the people (hereinafter “the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc.”) as one of the requirements to recognize persons of distinguished services to the State. Unlike the foregoing, the amendment of the former Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State, which would have been recognized the scope of persons of distinguished service.

According to the purport of this Act, Article 3 [Attachment 1] 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc.”) provides that “an accident or accident directly caused by the performance of duties or the performance of duties, practical training, or education and training,” and “medically recognized disease that has been caused by acutely due to the performance of duties or education and training,” etc., shall be based on the requirements for persons of distinguished service to the State. On the other hand, Article 2 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, Article 2 [Attachment 1] 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Support for Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State”) which is recognized as a person of distinguished service to the State.”

In full view of the contents and legislative developments of the above provisions of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State, and the literal differences in the text and text of the provision on the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State and the Act on Veterans of Distinguished Services, “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 insufficient to simply have a proximate causal relationship between the performance of duties, education, training, and death

Therefore, where a person’s negligence or private circumstance, even though his/her performance of duties or education and training had partly influenced his/her death or wound, is considerably competing with the cause thereof, where his/her own physical talent or living habits is attributable to his/her own physical talent or lifestyle, or where an existing disease is partially aggravated due to his/her performance of duties or education and training, etc., and it cannot be deemed that the principal cause of such death or wound, it does not constitute the scope of recognition of requirements for a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2015Du46994, Jul. 27, 2016; 2014Du42896, Aug. 18, 2016).

Meanwhile, Article 3 [Attachment Table 1] 2-8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “Attachment Table 2-8”) provides that “the performance of duties or education and training (such as military guards’ boundary, search, clothes, inspection, maintenance, distribution, transportation, education and training, etc. of munitions, such as equipment and materials, and other things directly related thereto)” shall be “medically recognized diseases that have occurred due to immediate cause” and “excluding cases where an existing disease has occurred or aggravated.” However, Article 4(1) 6 of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State includes “disease” as to “the main disease” and “the main disease of a person of distinguished services to the State” should be deemed as included in cases where an existing disease or disease has been aggravated due to an accident or accident as prescribed in subparagraph 2-1, 2-2, or 2-7 of the attached Table 2, and thus, it shall not be deemed that there is a significant difference between the existing disease or disease that may have occurred and the existing one’s own injury or disease.”

B. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following facts.

1) On December 2, 1972, the Plaintiff entered the Army on December 1, 1972, and was placed at 123 102 Posphersphersphersphersphersphersphersphersphersphersphers, and served as a captain of the armored vehicle

2) The Plaintiff’s unit operated an emergency drill at intervals of 12 hours and 24 hours in the atmosphere of mobilization. The Plaintiff, as a driver’s disease, was in the operation of the unit, was in excess of 12 hours and 2 hours in the operation of the unit. In addition, the Plaintiff’s unit, as a driver’s disease, was in charge of cleaning the 4 boxes of the armored vehicle and towing for 30 minutes in the armored vehicle in the underground miter, and was in charge of towing for the 30 minutes in the front time in the front time in the front time in the front time of the Korean War. Since the fore part of the fore part of the fore part of the fore part of the fore part of the fore part of the fore part of the

3) At the time of entering the Gun, the Plaintiff was in full 1.2, and was also selected as a day-time and night-time first class physician in the shooting training conducted on March 20, 1973. The Plaintiff was discharged from military service on January 31, 1975, following a diagnosis on the left-hand vision of the vision and the yellow diversity test conducted on January 7, 1974 that the visual vision of the eye significantly lowered to 0.3, and was diagnosed as 0.3, and then aggravated to the net diverse of the left-hand divers, and that it was impossible to recover to the left-hand diversity of the left-hand diversity of November 22, 1974.

4) On August 31, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State by alleging that “the fluoral-centered debrisonitis, the debrisonism in the left, the debrisonism in the left (hereinafter “debrisonion”), and the fluoral high blood pressure” have developed or deteriorated due to overwork and occupational stress during the military service. On April 8, 2013, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-specific determination of the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that there is no proximate causal relation between the military’s performance of duties and the aforementioned wounds.

5) The appraisal of medical records does not seem to have been expressed that the Plaintiff had a high blood pressure per se, which directly caused high blood pressure, and the high blood pressure had an impact on the occurrence of the dynamic wound, but rather, expressed that the Plaintiff was the direct cause as a person who suffered from or was injured in the dynamics, such as frequent emergency training, long-term boundary service, etc., and overwork and stress caused by long-term boundary work, etc.

C. Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the following reasons directly resulted from the performance of duties or education and training directly related to the national defense, etc., and the Plaintiff can be deemed as satisfying the requirements of a soldier or policeman wounded on duty under the Act and subordinate statutes of the State.

1) The Plaintiff’s performance of duties, such as two guard service for 12 hours each week, emergency training for military units at one week, and pre-work for the cleaning and the mooring of spawds, etc., constitutes performance of duties directly related to the national defense, etc. or practical and practical training directly related thereto, such as boundaries and equipment stipulated in subparagraph 2-1(a) or 2-2 of the attached Table.

2) In the case of the Plaintiff, it is difficult to view that high blood pressure, which directly causes high blood pressure, appears to be an opinion on the symptoms of high blood pressure. Therefore, high blood pressure, which is the Plaintiff’s existing disease, is difficult to be deemed as the main cause of the outbreak or aggravation of the dynamic injury

3) Rather, in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s pre-entry trial force was normal; (b) the Plaintiff was finally aggravated from the 11-month period after entering the Plaintiff’s workplace; and (c) the Plaintiff’s performance of duties and the details of education and training, etc., the Plaintiff’s performance shows that, based on an average person’s average, physical and mental harm would be considerably accumulated to a level that results in physical and mental harm; and (c) the appraisal of medical records also appears to have direct cause as the person who suffered from or was bad in the face of the injury; (b) in light of the fact that the excess and stress arising from the performance of duties or education and training were the main cause of the injury, it appears that there was a difference in the face, or that it was rapidly aggravated at least,.

D. Although the reasoning of the judgment below on this part is partly insufficient, it is just to determine that the Plaintiff suffered from wounds in the course of performing duties or education and training directly related to the national defense, etc., and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the requirements, etc. of soldiers and policemen on duty

2. Whether revocation of a non-competent decision of a person of distinguished service to the State on the part of the main blood pressure of this kind is justifiable (Ground of appeal No. 1)

A. Interpretation of relevant statutes, such as Article 4(1)6, Article 6-3(1), and Article 6-4 of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State, where the requirements for persons of distinguished services to the State are recognized only for some of the differences in the litigation seeking revocation of a non-applicable disposition on several wounds, only the part concerning the difference in which the above requirements are recognized among the pertinent non-applicable disposition shall be revoked, and the entire non-applicable disposition shall not be revoked (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du9263, Mar. 29, 2012, etc.).

B. The lower court, among the differences in the Plaintiff’s assertion, determined that the main blood pressure did not meet the requirements of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State because it was not recognized as a proximate causal relationship with the performance of duties, but revoked the entire

C. In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the judgment of the court below that held that, among the Plaintiff’s assertion, the blood pressure of the principal cannot be deemed to have been recognized as a requirement for a person who rendered distinguished service to the State is acceptable. However, as long as the requirements for a person who rendered distinguished service to the State are recognized, the part concerning the difference in the principal should have been revoked, but the court below erred in cancelling only the part among the instant disposition, which is not recognized as a requirement, and affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, among the judgment of the court below, the part concerning the non-competent decision-making of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State against the deadly high blood pressure among the judgment of the court below is reversed. Since this part of the case is sufficient for the Supreme Court to directly judge, it is decided in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 437 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the plaintiff's appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance that dismissed the plaintiff's claim for that part of the case is dismissed. The remaining grounds for appeal by the defendant are without merit, and one-fourth of the total costs of the lawsuit are dismissed,

Justices Kim Shin (Presiding Justice)