2020 Gudan10260 Revocation of Disposition of Refusal, etc. of Persons of Distinguished Service to State

A

Law Firm B

Attorney C

Attorney Lee Jae-soo et al.

Head of the North Korean Veterans Organization;

Litigation Performers E

May 21, 2021

June 25, 2021

1. The decision that the Defendant rendered against the Plaintiff on March 18, 2019 that constituted a non-conformity of the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished services to the State shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

In addition, the decision of the court below is revoked on March 18, 2019.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff was born in 1972, and entered the Army around December 1992, and was discharged from military service on February 1995.

B. On December 1, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for the registration of persons of distinguished service to the State with the Defendant on or around October 1, 20193, “Abstinence and incompetence during night shooting training.” On or around February 28, 2017, the Defendant determined that the Plaintiff was suffering after shooting during military service, and thus, the Defendant fell under the requirements prescribed by the Act on the Honorable Treatment of and Support for Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (hereinafter “Act”), but the “Sabar Noise Korea (hereinafter “the instant wound”) determined that the Plaintiff did not meet the criteria for the compensation under the Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State or the Act on the Support for Persons of Distinguished Service to the State (hereinafter “Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State”). Since then, the Plaintiff was determined to have failed to meet the criteria for the rating of injury as a result of the physical examination classification.

C. On June 14, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for re-registration of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State again, but the Defendant rendered a decision on March 18, 2019 that the Plaintiff does not meet the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2, 9, 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff was exposed to noise that occurred during shooting training in the military forces and caused the wounds and injuries of this case on both sides. Accordingly, the Plaintiff constitutes a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State, as the Plaintiff was injured in the performance of duties or education and training directly related to national defense and security, thereby constituting a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State. Nevertheless, the instant disposition on a different premise is unlawful.

(b) Facts of recognition;

1) The "physical examination" column of the Plaintiff's military service records is indicated as "after and under normal conditions."

2) After entering the military, the Plaintiff, while serving as a communications soldier by virtue of the 706 special performance after entering the military, had completed night shooting training, such as compilation firearms (M60, 60 meters-mort guns) in the military field training conducted from October 29, 1993 to November 3, 1993, and complained of more than Cheong power.

3) On May 17, 1994, the Plaintiff complained of symptoms that were not immediately treated due to the training of military units, etc., and was diagnosed as ‘comforceptional promotion (out of a sound)’ by being admitted to the National Armed Forces affiliated Hospital. The medical records for outpatients of the National Armed Forces, stated ‘comforction disorder (--)’ as the medical records for outpatients. The Plaintiff was assigned to a special volunteer soldier from the communications hospital due to difficulties in communication, such as not being aware of the horses while performing his/her duties.

4) From March 17, 2005, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “chronronyal chronrony,” “chronyal chronye chrony,” and “hronological chronological chronye,” and was diagnosed as “hronological chronye,” and “hronological chronye,” respectively.

5) On January 5, 2010, the Plaintiff was diagnosed on the right 40dB, the left-hand 55dB as a result of the Cheongmanology test on January 5, 2010. On May 25, 2017, the Plaintiff was found to have the right-hand 56.7dB, and the left-hand 57.5dB.

6) The Plaintiff graduated from the Gun after having been removed from the Gun, and has been engaged in activities as Jeondogs and pastors until now. The Plaintiff’s above duties are not specially exposed to noise.

7) The court’s appraisal of medical records reveals the following medical opinions.

○○ The Plaintiff appears to have an abnormal opinion of Cheongsung Cheongsung in 2005 on both sides. The 3 minutes of Cheongsung in general in 2005 shows little difficulties due to the right 20dB on the left side, and 26dB on the left side. However, in 4k Hz, the Plaintiff already shows serious high lusium 50dB on the right 70dB on the left side and 60dB on the left side, and the Plaintiff appears to have a unique opinion of Cheongsung Cheongsung in 2017 on May 9, 2017, the Plaintiff appears to have a difficult view of 5dB on the left side of 57.5dB on the ground that it appears that there was a significant damage to Cheongsung Cheongsung’s noise at the time of 36.7dB on the left side and 31.5dB on the left side of 12 years on the ground that it is difficult to view that there was a significant change in noise or other drug exposure.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4 and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10 (including a branch number, if any), the result of the court’s entrustment of appraisal of medical records to the Director of the Medical Appraisal Board of the Korean Medical Association, the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

1) Article 4(1)6 of the Act on Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State stipulates that “A person who was injured (including illness) in the course of performing his/her duties or education and training directly related to national defense and security or the protection of people’s lives and property (hereinafter “national defense, etc.”) shall be one of the requirements to recognize him/her as a soldier or policeman on duty. In accordance with the purport of this Act, [Attachment 1] 2 of Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State”) provides that “an accident or accident that occurred directly due to the performance of duties or education and training directly related to the performance of duties,” “an accident or accident that occurred directly due to the performance of duties or the performance of education and training

According to the provisions of the above Acts and subordinate statutes and the legislative intent of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State, “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 simply by having a proximate causal relation between the performance of duties or education and training and the difference, and it is reasonable to view

Therefore, in cases where a person’s negligence or private circumstance, even though the person’s performance of duties or education and training partially affected, overlaps with the cause thereof, where the person’s negligence or private circumstance is attributable to his/her physical talent or lifestyle, or where an existing disease is merely aggravated due to his/her performance of duties or education and training, etc., it cannot be deemed that the person’s performance of duties or education and training was the main cause of his/her death or disability, it does not constitute the scope of recognition of the person who rendered distinguished services to the State (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Du46034, Aug.

2) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the health team, the above fact of recognition, the evidence as seen earlier, and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the instant case, the instant wounds directly occurred due to the main reason of performing duties or education and training directly related to the national defense, etc., and the Plaintiff can be deemed to satisfy the requirements of soldiers and police officers on duty

(1) The performance of duties, such as military field training, shooting training, etc. conducted by the Plaintiff shall be limited to the performance of duties directly related to national defense, etc. or the performance of duties, such as boundary, search, clothes, inspections, chemical, biological, radiological, ammunition, explosives, oil, etc. prescribed in Article 3 [Attachment Table 1] 2-1 (a) or 2-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State, or practical and practical training, such as training, etc. directly related thereto.

② The Plaintiff was judged as a normal person with respect to the previous record of entry.

③ However, after completing shooting training in the military force training conducted between October 29, 1993 and November 3, 1993, the Plaintiff constantly complained of more than Cheongman’s ability. Around May 17, 1994, the Plaintiff received a diagnosis of Cheongman’s ability (out of sound). The Plaintiff stated that the Plaintiff’s medical record at the time was “contestable disorder (--).” However, there is no record that the Plaintiff was aware of the Cheongman’s ability test at the time. In response to the Plaintiff’s civil petition meeting, both Korea Armed Forces of the Armed Forces of the Armed Forces of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Korea was introduced from 197 to the Korea Armed Forces of the Armed Forces. The Plaintiff appears to have shown more than Cheongman’s ability in that the Plaintiff adjusted the assignment due to communication problems caused by Cheongman’s ability during military service.

④ If the Plaintiff did not cause the family history of each of the instant diseases, noise exposure other than firearms noise, toxic drugs, or other internal diseases, the examination of the medical records of this court presented the Plaintiff’s opinion that the Plaintiff shows the high-speed panscopic panscopic panscopic panscopic panscopic panscopic panscopic panscopic panscopic panscopic panscopic panscopic panscopic panscopic pans

⑤ From around 2005 to around 10 years after the 10th anniversary of the military king, the Plaintiff seems to have been diagnosed as a 's Magneological Distress', but it seems that the point of view is late because the Magne’s Magneary Magneary Magnes limited to the Magne Station was unable to become aware of the overall Magne’s function. Meanwhile, in 2005, the Plaintiff showed a normal opinion as a whole, but the Magne had already shown serious difficulties in the left-hand 70dB and 60dB in the Magne Station, which is a characteristic opinion of the Magne Magne’s Magne. Furthermore, even if the Magne’s Magne’s Magne was recovered after the high noise exposure, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Plaintiff had been affected by the Magne’s Magne’s Magneary Magne’s military service.

④ According to the health insurance benefit content on the Plaintiff, the record that the Plaintiff received once from the Plaintiff on March 17, 2005 was confirmed as “synchychitis,” but it is difficult to view the “sychitis,” solely on the basis of the above insurance benefit content, as the main cause for the instant difference.

7. There is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff was engaged in, or was exposed to, a business that could cause noise from the aftermath of the noise.

8) Ultimately, insofar as it is recognized that the noise that occurred in the course of performing duties or education and training was directly caused by the noise that occurred in the course of performing duties or education and training for the plaintiff, it is reasonable to deem that the injury in this case was caused by the main cause of performing duties or education and training, or that at least the injury

3) Therefore, the instant disposition that deemed that the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for a person who rendered distinguished service to the State is unlawful, and the Plaintiff’s primary claim is with merit (as long as the Plaintiff’s primary claim is accepted, it shall not be judged separately as to the conjunctive claim).

3. Conclusion

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

Judge the last secretary: