[2] The case holding that a proximate causal relationship may be acknowledged between mental fissiona and military service in a case where a person who shows symptoms similar to the previous symptoms of the previous mental illness before entering the military has caused or aggravated mental fissiona due to excessive stress that was inflicted in the military life

1. A. The term "an injury or disease during education and training or in the performance of duty (including a disease in official duty)" in Article 4 (1) 6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State refers to the injury or disease of military personnel or police officer during education and training or in the performance of duty. Thus, in order to be different from the above provision, there should be a proximate causal relation between education and training or in the performance of duty and the injury or disease. In addition, not only the case where an existing disease directly causes injury or disease due to education and training or in the performance of duty, but also the case where an existing disease overlaps with a road or a group, etc. due to education and training or in the performance of duty and in the performance of duty, it should be deemed that there is a causal relation between education and training or in the performance of duty and the injury or disease (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Du331, Jun. 8, 199; 200Du18581, Nov. 28, 2007

B. The lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning based on the duly admitted evidence, and determined that the proximate causal relationship between the Plaintiff’s military service and the mental fission cannot be acknowledged, as it is difficult to see that the Plaintiff’s mental fission was caused or aggravated due to harsh treatment, such as appointive disease, or bullying of the same soldiers.

However, according to the facts acknowledged by the court below, the plaintiff had been suffering from 160 kilograms and 60 kilograms of body size, or from 160 kilograms of body size, and had been suffering from symptoms similar to the cromatic symptoms of mental illness, such as dynasium, hair, chest answer, etc. without adaptation to university life before entering the university. There was a lack of adaptation ability so as to lead training life or military service, and failed to properly perform duties, so it was caused not only by shock with appointed soldiers or volunteer soldiers, but also by the 10-day considerable period of 10 days. In light of the above 20-day period of 20-day period of 1994, there was no possibility that the plaintiff had been suffering from mental disorder due to stress or 40 kilograms of mental disorder, and there was no possibility that the plaintiff would have been suffering from 10-day mental disorder in the process of 194.

Therefore, the court below should have judged the proximate causal relationship between the plaintiff's mental division certificate and military service by closely examining whether the plaintiff's symptoms at present are natural progress or whether the plaintiff's mental division has induced or aggravated due to military service with respect to symptoms similar to those of the former and current state that the plaintiff was admitted to the plaintiff. However, the court below determined that there is no proximate causal relationship between the plaintiff's mental division certificate and military service. Such judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of law necessary for the application of Article 4 (1) 6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The part of the grounds for appeal pointing this out is with merit.

2. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff, 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 Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)