2016Nu5171 Action demanding revocation of the refusal to register as bereaved family members of patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants

A

Head of Gyeonggi-Nam Veterans Branch Office

Suwon District Court Decision 2014Gudan31678 Decided June 19, 2015

Seoul High Court Decision 2015Nu51592 Decided February 5, 2016

Supreme Court Decision 2016Du35755 Decided July 7, 2016

November 30, 2016

December 21, 2016

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit after the appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on August 4, 2014 against the bereaved family members of patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The reasoning of this Court concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for supplement of the following judgments. Thus, this Court shall accept it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Supplementary judgment

In full view of the language and text of Article 8(1)1 of the former Act on Assistance to Patients suffering from Actual aftereffects of defoliants, etc. and Establishment of Related Associations (amended by Act No. 13605, Dec. 22, 2015; hereinafter “former Act”) and the amendment history, the support system of the former Act on defoliants and the compensation system for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State, etc., “a person recognized as having died from defoliants before being registered pursuant to Article 4” in the main issues of this case refers to a person who died from actual aftereffects of defoliants before the determination and completion of registration of a patient suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants pursuant to Article 4 of the former Act. Therefore, the bereaved family members of a person registered as a patient suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants but determined to fall short of the standards for classification shall be excluded from the application of the main issues of this case. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff falls under the bereaved family members as provided for in Article 8(1)1 of the former Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Mobilization by the presiding judge

Judges Yoon Jong-dae

Judge Lee Jae-soo