Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 1 other

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

A. On October 10, 2005, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was on duty as a field communications soldier belonging to the Korean War Team, and was discharged from military service on May 30, 2007.

B. The plaintiff suffered from the plaintiff's mental illness (hereinafter in this case) and applied for registration of a person who has rendered distinguished service to the defendant. The defendant was found to have received treatment as "mental disorder during military service" at the 69th Veterans Examination Council in 2007, but it cannot be recognized as a public duty-related nature if the plaintiff suffered from mental illness without any special two trauma in relation to the performance of official duties in the military as a result of the previous medical advisory council. The plaintiff is confirmed to have caused symptoms without two trauma, and even in the major category of the army, it is confirmed that the plaintiff was suffering from symptoms without one other, and it is determined as "the injury on the part of the military." On September 4, 2007, the plaintiff did not recognize a public non-related nature, taking into account the defects of the deliberation and resolution in the contents of the above deliberation and resolution, and made a decision that falls under the requirements of a person who has rendered distinguished service to the plaintiff on the same grounds as the above (hereinafter in this case).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff did not have any physical or mental health problems before entering the military and did not have any anything else in a physical examination for military admission. Despite the absence of a person with mental capacity even among the plaintiff's family members, the plaintiff's occurrence of the difference in this case was caused by stress related to unfair treatment or military service that the plaintiff received while serving in the military, and appropriate.

It is deemed that the symptoms have deteriorated after setting the treatment period. Accordingly, the instant disposition that determined that the causal relationship between the occurrence or aggravation of the instant wounds and the performance of military duties is not recognized is unlawful.

(b) Facts of recognition;

(1) The plaintiff's military service and the progress of the instant injury

① On January 20, 1985, the Plaintiff: (a) was born to the △△ High School (electronic department) on February 11, 2003; (b) was admitted to the △△ University in 2004, and (c) was admitted to the △△ University in Yanananannan, and was on duty for about 18 months from the former subsidiary called “A” to the A/S engineer.

② The Plaintiff had not shown symptoms of mental illness before entering the hospital, or had not been receiving medical treatment at a mental department, and was subject to physical grade 1 in a physical examination conducted on November 28, 2003 and March 16, 2004. At the time of the physical examination conducted on March 16, 2004, the Plaintiff was judged as an abnormal result of the first physical examination conducted on March 16, 2004, and was judged as a normal judgment.

(3) There is no person who suffers from or is currently suffering from the previous mental illness among the plaintiff's family members.

④ On October 10, 2005, the Plaintiff entered the Army and undergone military training on October 10, 2005, and was assigned to the Army Spool No. 000 Spool on November 18, 2005, and served as a telecommunication volunteer.

⑤ On May 2006, the Plaintiff: (a) around 1, 2006, the Plaintiff: (b) around 2006, her fluencing B, stating that the Plaintiff was fluencing or wishing to fluent in the military unit that the Plaintiff was fluoring to fluencing the fluor; (c) was fluoring the fluor; (d) was fluencing the fluor; and (e) was fluoring the fluor, while serving the fluor in the military; and (e) was fluencing the fluor of the Plaintiff when the fluencing soldier was on duty while serving the fluor in the military; and (e) the Plaintiff was fluencing the fluencing and bluoring the flusium on the ground that the Plaintiff was fluencing the fluor.

④ From January 14, 2007 to January 18, 2007, the Plaintiff did not have been urged at the time of leave, such as having been traveling to the sea of the Yellow Sea on a two-day basis, such as having been traveling to the sea of the Yellow Sea on a two-day basis, such as having been on the sick leave between B and B, etc.

7) From the time when the Plaintiff went to a regular leave of absence as above, he was unable to concentrate on business affairs. There were many different figures, such as the Plaintiff, who was locked, did not come to sleep, and appeared to have been on the ground that he did not come to sleep between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff.

④ According to the report by the commander of the subdivision C who observed the above figures of the Plaintiff, the commander of the Plaintiff unit continued to have the Plaintiff attached from January 26, 2007 to January 27: 09:0 on the following day from January 26, 2007, and had an interview with the Plaintiff. At the time, the Plaintiff asked questions as to whether he/she was about whether he/she was about about whether he/she was about about the matter of concern.

① On January 28, 2007, the Plaintiff’s parents confirmed the Plaintiff’s condition at the visit and the Plaintiff’s body, and requested a high-level unit to receive treatment outside of the same manner as that of the Plaintiff’s mental health. On January 29, 2007, the Plaintiff was hospitalized in the Hospital of Malon University and received treatment at the Hospital of Malon University on February 14, 2007, after being transmitted to the National Armed Forces of 00 Hospital, and “F29 mental disorder (Psychtic NOS’s certificate) was hospitalized under the diagnosis, and was diagnosed on May 4, 2007 by Malon Hospital of F29 new illness (Pssitic disease) and was diagnosed on May 30, 2007 by Mal on May 4, 2007, and then was diagnosed on May 37, 2007 by Malon Hospital of F29 Pssi’s mental disorder.

(2) The progress of the therapy at the △ Hospital of the Atol University

① At the time of hospitalization on January 29, 2007, the Plaintiff was in a state of uneasiness, failure to properly provide meals, failure to respond to interview, and failure to properly conduct the water surface.

② According to the Plaintiff’s nursing records on January 29, 2007 (parents, punishment, and interview records), the Plaintiff’s parents “it is difficult to lead military life. In the future, there are 40 or more high-rankings. In August, 200, her parents are expulsions, and school-friendly her relatives are currently the head of the subdivision of the Plaintiff’s unit, and her relatives are now the head of the subdivision of the Plaintiff’s unit, and her relatives are able to look at the Plaintiff’s friendly group in March, 200. It is recorded that her talked about the military life.

③ The qualitative cause of the Plaintiff’s mental illness was excluded from the cause of the occurrence of the Plaintiff’s mental illness because there was no particular or abnormal opinion on blood examination or MOI’s examination.

④ The Plaintiff’s consciousness is strong, finite and finite, and finite and finite, and seems to have been finite and finiteed conflicts, which had been experienced by the past, and has been weakeningd with stress’s internal strength and impulse control power, and was in a state of risk if hospitalized treatment is not continued, and the recognition function was extremely far far far far away from the mental body level (findicial index 69).

(3) Results of the physical examination of the Director of the Nancheon University and the Director of the Division of the University.

① Although the outbreak of a mental fission has not yet been accurately confirmed and various theories have been presented regarding the cause, it is generally known that the symptoms appear at the time of the patient’s growth with a genetic source against a mental fission and with the vulnerability to the outbreak of a mental fission, and at the time of any other person’s intervention, the age of the outbreak of a mental fission is between 15 and 25 years of age.

② In light of the fact that there is a view that social stress is related to the outbreak itself or the aggravation of symptoms of the patient’s emotional vulnerability or military life, it is difficult to directly reveal the cause of the occurrence of the instant wound, and that there is a possibility that the outbreak or symptoms of the patient might have deteriorated due to stress arising from military life might be caused by stress. In addition, in light of the fact that social stress is related to the outbreak itself or the aggravation of symptoms, and that there is no observation of the patient’s function deterioration until leave on January 18, 2007 after entering the hospital, and that there is symptoms after the military life.

③ Even after entering the hospital, the Plaintiff was assessed as having no big problem in the performance of his/her duties, and was found to have not been discovered that he/she was traveling with his/her natives during his/her leave of absence, and that he/she began to engage in acts beyond mental illness after the above leave of absence, and thus, the Plaintiff seems to have been suffering from mental division of the Plaintiff around this time.

【Ground of recognition】 Nos. 5 through 7, 9, and 10 (No. 10)

b) the result of the physical examination of the Director of the Nancheon University and the Director of the Division of the University;

The purport of all pleadings

C. Determination

(1) Article 4(1)6 (including diseases caused by official duties) of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State refers to the injury or disease caused by a soldier or a police officer during education and training or in the performance of duty. Thus, in order to be different from the above provision, there must be a substantial causal relationship between the soldier's or the police officer's duty and the injury or disease. In order to be different from the above provision, there should be a direct cause of education and training or in the performance of duty, and there should be a causal relationship even in the case of the injury or the disease caused directly due to education and training or in the performance of duty, or in the case of the recurrence or aggravation of the work due to excessive education and training or in the performance of duty, and the causal relationship should not be necessarily proved clearly by medical and natural science, and in consideration of all the circumstances, it should be judged that there is a substantial causal relationship between education and training or in the performance of duty and the injury or disease.

(2) We examine the following circumstances found by the above recognition: ① the Plaintiff appears to have been engaged in daily life without any symptoms of mental illness, such as having attended a military university before entering the military, ② there is no mental disease among the Plaintiff’s family members; ③ On October 10, 2005, the Plaintiff was placed in the military unit on the following day after he went through around January 1, 2007, and was on duty after he went through around 0: (4) the Plaintiff appeared to have been under a strict regulation and control different from that of the general society, and (5) it appears that the Plaintiff continued to suffer from stress on the ground that the Plaintiff was unable to suffer from stress on the ground that the Plaintiff was on the 2nd day after entering the military unit and was on duty at the 0th day after having been on duty, and that the Plaintiff was on duty at the 0th day after having been on duty at the 0th day after having been on duty and had been on duty at the 1st day after having been on duty.

In full view of the following facts: (a) a person who lives in the military on a regular basis within the area and does not seem to have any special circumstance that could lead to the occurrence of a mental disorder, other than stress that he/she had sustained in the military service; (b) a person who continues to suffer from a mental disorder occurring during his/her military service; and (c) a person who suffers from a mental fission is found to have not yet clearly identified the cause of the outbreak; and (d) a person who has a mental disorder disorder is deemed to have worked as a factor of the outbreak of a mental fission or to have aggravated stress caused by an old or closed path, etc. as a factor of the outbreak of a mental disorder; (e) a person who suffers from a mental disorder in the area of his/her absence of adequate adaptation to the new environment during his/her military service, and (e) a person who suffers from stress or any other cause caused by a mental disorder during his/her military service in connection with his/her military service and who was suffering from a mental disorder or any other cause in connection with his/her military life.

(3) Therefore, since there is a proximate causal relationship between the Plaintiff’s mental fission and the performance of official duties, the instant disposition based on a different premise is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and accepted.