beta
(영문) 대법원 2015.06.11 2011두32898

유족보상금부지급처분취소

Text

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The term “public disease” which serves as the requirement for the payment of bereaved family’s compensation under Article 61(1) of the Public Officials Pension Act refers to a disease caused by the official duty during the performance of the official duty. As such, there should be causation between the occurrence of the official duty and the disease, and such causation must be attested by the party asserting it

However, the causal relationship does not necessarily have to be proved clearly in medical or natural science, and if proximate causal relationship is recognized from the normative point of view, there should be proof.

In a case where a public official dies due to a suicide, when a disease occurs in the line of duty, or an excessive stress in the line of duty overlaps with the main cause of the disease, resulting in the outbreak or aggravation of the disease, and when it can be inferred that such disease has resulted in suicide in a situation where the normal perception ability, the ability to choose an act, or the ability to restrain mentally or significantly drops, and where it is impossible to expect reasonable judgment, there is a proximate causal relation between the public official and the death

In addition, in order to recognize such proximate causal relationship, comprehensive consideration should be given to the degree of illness or aftermath of the person who committed the suicide, general symptoms of the disease, period of medical care, possibility of recovery, age, physical and psychological circumstances, surrounding circumstances where the person committed the suicide was committed, circumstances leading to the suicide, etc.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du3944, Jun. 9, 201). 2. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following facts.

The deceased B, the husband of the plaintiff, was appointed as the unit commander of the reserve forces from January 1, 200, and was appointed as the unit commander of the reserve forces on November 1, 2009, and was newly organized for the purpose of efficiently controlling and operating the organization of the reserve forces on November 1, 2009.