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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 23(1) of the former Military Pension Act (amended by Act No. 11632, Mar. 22, 2013; hereinafter the same) provides that when a soldier retires from office under the condition of disability due to a disease or injury caused by official duties, or becomes the condition of disability due to a disease or injury after retirement, a pension for wounds shall be paid according to the standard amount classified into Grades I through VII from that time until he/she dies from that time, and Article 24(1) of the same Act provides that where a person entitled to a pension for wounds has improved or aggravated the degree of disability of a person entitled to a pension for wounds, or the Minister of National Defense acknowledges it through deliberation by the Military Pension Benefits Council.

The term “ disability caused by a disease or injury” under Article 23(1) of the former Military Pension Act refers to a case where a disease or injury was cured but a person’s permanent mental or physical damage remains. Here, healing refers to a case where the treatment of a disease or injury was unable to expect or where its symptoms are fixed (see Supreme Court Decision 87Nu121, May 24, 198). Thus, in order to constitute “where the degree of disability becomes worse or aggravated,” which is the requirement for revision of a disability rating under Article 24(1) of the former Military Pension Act, the degree of the disease or injury is insufficient merely because the degree of the disease or injury becomes worse or aggravated temporarily compared with the time when the disability rating was determined. As such, it is reasonable to interpret that the situation before or after the disease or injury cannot expect the treatment effect of the disease or injury, or where the symptoms are fixed so that it becomes impossible to maintain the existing disability rating as it is.

2.(a)

The judgment below

According to the reasoning and evidence duly admitted by the court below, the Plaintiff’s spouse B (hereinafter “the deceased”) is in military service.