Relationship between a claim for survivor pension under the Military Aid Benefits Act and a claim for damages under the State Compensation Act;

A claim for survivor's pension under the Military Aid Benefits Act and a claim for damages under the State Compensation Act are in conflict with each other.

Article 18 of the Military Aid Benefits Act, Article 2 of the former State Compensation Act

Plaintiff et al.

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 67Na957 delivered on November 3, 1967

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Judgment on the grounds of appeal by Defendant Litigation Performers

Even if the bereaved family's amount paid under the Military Aid Benefit Act has the nature of the transfer of damage to a soldier who died as in the theory of lawsuit, it shall be deemed that there exists a concurrent relationship between a claim for damages under the State Compensation Act and a claim for damages under the Military Aid Benefit Act. In such a case, only a claim under the Military Aid Benefit Act may be exercised, or a claim under the same Act shall not be exercised preferentially. If there is a concurrent relationship between a claim and a claim, if the purpose of the claim is achieved by one's exercise of one's claim, the concurrent claim may not be exercised. Thus, if the original judgment is not actually paid to the plaintiff 1, but is not actually paid to the plaintiff 1, the action against the family's amount that the plaintiff 1 did not deduct from the damages of this case claimed by the same plaintiff

Therefore, the appeal is without merit, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court Dog-gu (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak and Mag-gu Mag-gu