1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasons why the court accepted the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following 2. Paragraph (2) at the end of the sixth part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420

[The first instance court determined, based on its reasoning, that the Plaintiff’s son was not a person of distinguished service to the State or a person eligible for veteran’s compensation (the soldier or policeman of distinguished service to the State or a person eligible for veteran’s compensation). Even if examining the Plaintiff’s assertion and reasons partially supplemented in the trial, the first instance court’s judgment is just and acceptable as

2. The details of the addition (in addition, the Patriots and Veterans Compensation Act delegates specific criteria and scope of persons eligible for veteran's compensation to determine whether they meet the requirements for persons eligible for veteran's compensation under Article 2 (2).

According to the delegation, Article 2 [Attachment 1] 15 of the Enforcement Decree of the Patriots and Veterans Compensation Act provides that “A soldier or a person who, as a person of mandatory military service, has been medically recognized to have died from self-injury in a state where free will is excluded from his/her duties or education and training due to the direct cause of such act, etc.” as a person eligible for veteran’s compensation.

In order to recognize that the performance of duties, etc. was a “direct cause” as stipulated in the above provision, it is not sufficient to simply have a proximate causal relation between the performance of duties and the death caused by self-injury, and it is reasonable to view that the death constitutes a case where it is deemed that the death was directly caused by the main cause, such as the performance of duties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2014Du42986, Aug. 18, 2016; 2015Du46994, Jul. 27, 2016). In the instant case, in light of the above circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the deceased’s assignment was changed and the new performance of duties is required.