(b) The case holding that it is reasonable to presume that a decrease in physical resistance function due to an excess in the performance of official duties would have occurred due to a failure, even though the main cause of such failure was infected with an unsatisfychosis and died;

B. The case holding that, in light of the fact that a person whose physical resistance was weak due to the existing illness or other reasons, can be seen as suffering from a disease caused by a failure to prevent the rapid proliferation of germs that intruded into the body, and that the deceased continued to perform official duties for a long time prior to the outbreak of a parsis, except that there was a fact that he had been excessive compared to his usual level, such as where there was an existing disease, etc., and thus, he cannot be said to have caused a bodily resistance, and that there was no anything any error in the physical examination conducted prior to the above over-mentioned, and that a person who was normally healthy may go through a parosis even through a general satitis because of the decline of the physical resistance function of the human body at the time, and in light of the above circumstances, even if it was presumed that the deceased's failure was caused by an excess, it would be reasonable to presume that the main cause for the failure was caused by an empirical rule immediately before and after the outbreak of the body, and that the failure was caused due to the continued outbreak of the body.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that: (a) during the 196th day of September 1, 196, Nonparty 1 (date of birth omitted) who had been employed as a civilian military employee of the Army Headquarters as a civilian military employee; (b) during the 1990-year period from around November 1, 190, the military unit’s settlement of accounts for the 1990-day Standards Business; and (c) during the 18-day period from November 2, 1990 to December 18, 1991, the Defendant’s treatment of the deceased was not conducted on a 9-day basis, i.e., during the 10-day period during which 18-day period was exceeded 3 hours per day; and (d) the Defendant’s treatment was conducted on a 9-year basis because it was found that the 19-day period was less than the 9-day period of 10th day after the 19-year period of mass infection.

2. "Death caused by a disease caused by an official duty", which is the requirement for claiming compensation for bereaved family under Article 61 (1) of the Public Officials Pension Act, refers to the case of death caused by a disease caused by the official duty during the performance of official duties. Thus, there should be causation between the disease caused by the official duty and the death. However, even though the main cause of the disease is not directly related to the official duty, if the disease caused the disease or aggravated due to the overlapped cause of the main cause of the disease, the causal relation should be deemed to exist (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu817 delivered on February 22, 191; Supreme Court Decision 90Nu1274 delivered on May 22, 190).

According to the court below's findings, the deceased's physical resistance can be seen as a disease caused by his failure to prevent rapid proliferation of germs that occurred due to the existing disease or other reasons. According to the records, the deceased continued to perform official duties, such as performing overtime work for a considerable period of time prior to the outbreak of the deceased's infection, and it does not seem to have caused a fladism due to any existing disease, and there was no more than anything else in the physical examination conducted before the above fladism. On the other hand, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the presumption of fladism as to the fladism, which affected the deceased's body's fladism in light of the empirical rule of evidence No. 3, which was prepared by Non-Party 2, the doctor in charge of △△ Medical Center who was treated immediately before the deceased's death, and the fact finding that the deceased's fladism was caused before and after the death of the deceased's body was caused due to the fladism.

Therefore, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)