IF) EF - EF - E

Law Firm Doz.

Attorney Kim Kim, Kim

Litigation performers Kim mms, tearS, Kim, Park, gold

Article 4(1)6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (including diseases in the line of duty) refers to the injury or disease of a soldier or police officer during education and training or in the performance of duty (including diseases in the line of duty). Therefore, in order to be different from the above provision, there is a proximate causal relation between education and training or in the performance of duty and the injury or disease, and the causal relation between the injury and the injury should be proved by the claimant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du5617, Sept. 23, 2003). However, the causal relation does not necessarily have to be proved by medical and natural science, and it is presumed that there is a proximate causal relation between education and training or in the performance of duty and the injury and disease in consideration of all the circumstances, even if it is presumed that there is a proximate causal relation between education and training or in the performance of duty and the injury and disease in the line of duty. In addition, it is proved that it has aggravated above the level of age.

The causal link between education and training or performance of duties and the injury and disease should be determined on the basis of the health and physical conditions of the relevant soldier, not on the average person (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Du4538 delivered on July 27, 2001, etc.).

On February 20, 2006, the court below acknowledged the following facts: (a) on the basis of its adopted evidence: (b) the Plaintiff complained of knee-free knee-free kne-free kne-free kne-out kne-out kne-out kne-out kne-out kne-out kne-out kne-out kne-out kne-out kne-out kne-out kne-out kne-out kne-out kne-out kne-out on March 20, 206; (c) taken a photograph of kne-out kne-out kne-out kne-out kne-out kne-out kne-out kne-out (

8. On May 16, 2006, a physical examination for conscription was judged to be subject to enlistment in the second degree in the army, and after entering the army on May 16, 2006, the physical examination was determined as normal. After completing basic military training by June 22, 2006, the military training was conducted for the ○○○○○○○○○ Hospital on June 23, 2006. On August 17, 2006, the two months later, the Defendant was placed at the National Armed Forces Hospital on August 17, 2006. “In the first half of half of half of half of half of half of half of half of half of that day on the image of the external hospital’s name photo, the Defendant was diagnosed and was hospitalized at the OO hospital on September 8, 2006, and was hospitalized at the National Armed Forces Hospital on September 10 through the recommendation of the officer in charge.

8. After recognizing the fact that the Plaintiff was discharged from the military service, it was reasonable to view that the injury of the Plaintiff’s disease, which was a tent flag, was flaged by the flag-type sports, etc. before and after entering the hospital, the symptoms have deteriorated due to the natural progress after entering the hospital.

However, the judgment of the court below is not acceptable for the following reasons.

According to the facts and records admitted by the court below, the doctor's doctor of the ○○○○ Hospital treatment of the plaintiff showed the same opinion even in the operation on September 8, 2006, which was taken on March 22, 2006 for the plaintiff's outer half of the year, and there was an opinion that the long part of the body was in progress and the dynamics aggravated. The appraisal of the OOOO hospital entrusted by the court of first instance showed that if the plaintiff was the degree of enlistment, the OOO hospital's doctor's doctor's doctor's doctor's care in treatment of the plaintiff, and if there was a serious external shock or external shock, the OOO hospital's care by the commission of the court of first instance could be aggravated by the OOO hospital's care.

In light of the above legal principles, considering the fact that the plaintiff enlisted in the army after normal judgment at the time of the draft physical examination and had been placed in the normal part and had been on duty during the short-term service, as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff's pelle-out of the left-hand chain of the plaintiff's right-hand chain of this case, even though it is not possible to specifically determine the developments leading up to deterioration, the plaintiff's pelle-out of the plaintiff's right-hand chain of this case's failure to interfere with daily activities, which resulted in a sudden aggravation of natural progress or more due to the plaintiff's education and training or performance of duty, and therefore, the proximate causal relation between the plaintiff's education and training or performance of duty and the

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on proximate causal relation between the plaintiff's above disability and education and training or duty, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon

Justices Kim Nung-hwan

Justices Min Il-young