[1] The meaning of "direct cause relationship" necessary to be recognized as a soldier or policeman on duty pursuant to Article 4 (1) 5 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State

[2] The meaning of “the death during education and training” of a person eligible for veteran’s compensation under Article 2(1)1 of the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation, and whether the same provision applies to cases where a soldier’s death is caused by suicide (affirmative)

[3] The case where a proximate causal relationship can be acknowledged between death caused by suicide and the performance of duties during the military personnel’s military service, and the matters to be considered to establish a proximate causal relationship

[1] The “direct cause relationship” required to be recognized as a soldier or policeman on duty pursuant to Article 4(1)5 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State is insufficient simply to have a proximate causal relationship between the performance of duties or education and training, and the death should have occurred as the main cause of the performance of duties or education and training directly related to the national defense, etc.

[2] Article 2(1) of the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran's Compensation (hereinafter "Act on Persons Eligible for Veteran's Compensation") provides that "any of the following persons eligible for veteran's compensation, his/her bereaved family members, or his/her family members (including those who are provided for by other Acts to receive support, etc. under this Act) shall be supported by this Act." Article 2(1)1 provides that "A soldier or police officer killed in a disaster: A soldier, police officer, or fire-fighting officer who died during his/her duty or during education and training not directly related to national defense and security, national security, or national life

Here, “the performance of duties or the death during education and training” refers to cases where there is a proximate causal relationship between the performance of duties or the death of a soldier, etc., and the same applies to cases where the death of a soldier, etc

In addition, Article 2(3) of the Patriots and Veterans Compensation Act provides that “If a person meeting the requirements specified in any subparagraph of paragraph (1) is killed or wounded (including a disease) due to any of the following causes, a person eligible for veteran’s compensation who is registered pursuant to paragraph (1) or Article 4 shall be excluded from the person eligible for veteran’s compensation, his/her bereaved family, or his/her family members or family members” under subparagraph 1, “if the person intentionally or with gross negligence was caused by his/her own intention or gross negligence without any inevitable reason, or if the person significantly violated his/her superior’s order or his/her superior’s order, without any reasonable reason,” it should be deemed that Article 2(3) provides that “if there is no proximate causal relationship between education, training, or duty

Therefore, even in cases where a soldier, etc. died during his/her service due to suicide, whether “the death during his/her duty performance or education and training” under Article 2(1) of the Veterans’ Compensation Act constitutes “the death during his/her duty performance or education and training ought to be determined depending on whether there exists a proximate causal relationship between his/her duty performance or education and his/her death. Even if there is a proximate causal relationship between his/her duty performance or education and training, the death should not be excluded from a veteran solely on

In addition, the proximate causal relationship between the performance of duties and the death caused by suicide shall be proved by the arguments, but it shall not be necessarily proved by medical and natural science, and if proximate causal relationship is recognized from the normative point of view, it shall be deemed as proved.

[3] In a case where a soldier, etc. is presumed to have caused suicide in a situation where a disease, such as depression due to an overwork or stress, occurs, or an overwork or stress overlaps with the main cause of a disease, such as depression, etc., and where it can be presumed that such disease has caused suicide in such a situation as to make it impossible to expect reasonable judgment due to a significant decline in the normal perception ability or ability to choose an act, mental suppression ability, etc., a proximate causal relation may be acknowledged between the soldier’s duty and the death. In addition, for the purpose of recognizing such proximate causal relation, comprehensive consideration should be given of all the circumstances such as the content, nature, and work quantity of the person’s duty in charge of the suicide, and the symptoms and general symptoms, the age of the person who committed the suicide, physical and psychological situation, surrounding circumstances surrounding the person who committed the suicide, and circumstances leading to the suicide.

[1] Article 4 (1) 5 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State / [2] Article 2 (1) 1 and (3) 1 of the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran's Compensation, Article 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [3] Article 2 (1) 1 of the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2014Du42896 Decided August 18, 2016 (Gong2016Ha, 1364) / [2] Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Du27363 Decided June 18, 2012 (Gong2012Ha, 1300) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 2011Du32898 Decided June 11, 2015 (Gong2015Ha, 983) Supreme Court Decision 2012Du25637 Decided July 9, 2015

Plaintiff (Law Firm Lee & Lee, et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of the North Korean Veterans Organization;

Daegu High Court Decision 2016Nu5168 decided May 26, 2017

The part of the judgment of the court below concerning the conjunctive claim is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court. The plaintiff's remaining grounds of appeal are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal on the part of the primary claim (the claim for revocation of non-applicable decision of the State)

A. Under Article 4(1)5 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State”), “direct cause relationship” necessary to be recognized as a soldier or policeman who died on duty is not sufficient to simply have a proximate causal relationship between performance of duties, education and training, and death. The death should have occurred as the main cause of the performance of duties or education and training directly related to the national defense, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Du42896, Aug. 18,

B. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court’s determination that the deceased does not constitute a soldier or policeman on duty under the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State is acceptable. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending

2. As to the grounds of appeal as to the claim for preliminary injunction (claim for revocation of a decision non-conformity)

A. Article 2(1) of the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation (hereinafter “Act on Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation”) provides that “any of the following persons eligible for veteran’s compensation, his/her bereaved family members, or family members (including persons specified by other Acts as eligible for assistance, etc. under this Act) shall receive assistance pursuant to this Act,” and subparagraph 1 provides that “A soldier or police officer killed in a disaster: A soldier, police officer, or fire-fighting officer who died of his/her duty or during education and training (including a person who died of a disease) that is not directly related to national defense and security, national security, or

Here, “the performance of duties or the death during education and training” refers to cases where there is a proximate causal relationship between the performance of duties or the death of a soldier, etc., and the same applies to cases where the death of a soldier, etc.

In addition, Article 2(3) of the Patriots and Veterans Compensation Act provides that “If a person meeting the requirements specified in any subparagraph of paragraph (1) dies or is wounded (including suffering from a disease) due to any of the following causes, he/she shall be excluded from persons eligible for veteran’s compensation, his/her bereaved family, or his/her family members or family members registered pursuant to paragraph (1) or Article 4, without any inevitable reason,” and subparagraph 1 provides that “if a person is intentionally or by gross negligence, or seriously violates any relevant statute or an order of his/her superior, without any inevitable reason, or if a substantial causal relationship is not recognized between education and training, performance of duty, and death, etc.” However, it should be deemed that the provision is a principle and confirmation that the person is excluded from persons eligible for veteran’s compensation,

Therefore, even in cases where a soldier, etc. died during his/her service due to suicide, whether “the death during his/her duty performance or education and training” under Article 2(1) of the Patriots and Veterans Compensation Act constitutes “the death during his/her duty performance or education and training shall be determined based on whether there exists a proximate causal relationship between the soldier’s duty or education and the death. Even if there is a proximate causal relationship between his/her duty or education and training, the soldier should not be excluded from the veteran solely on the ground that the death was caused by suicide or on the ground that his/her free will was not committed while the death was completely excluded (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Du

In addition, the proximate causal relationship between the performance of duties and the death caused by suicide shall be proved by the assertion of such proximate causal relationship, but it shall not be necessarily proved by medical or natural science, and if proximate causal relationship is recognized from the normative point of view, it shall be deemed as proved.

A proximate causal relation may be acknowledged between a soldier, etc. and his/her death in the event that a soldier, etc. is presumed to have caused suicide in a situation where it is impossible to expect reasonable judgment because a disease, such as depression, occurs due to overwork or stress, or such disease overlaps with the main cause of a disease, such as depression in the performance of his/her duties, and the ability to make a normal recognition or choice of action, or the ability to restrain mental retardation, is considerably deteriorated due to such disease. In addition, for the purpose of recognizing such proximate causal relation, comprehensive consideration should be given of all the circumstances such as the content, character, and work of the person in charge of the suicide, the volume and intensity of the disease, such as depression, and general symptoms, the age of the person in charge of the suicide, physical and psychological conditions, surrounding circumstances surrounding the person in charge of the suicide, and circumstances leading to the suicide (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Du25637, Jul. 9, 2015, etc.).

B. The reasoning of the lower judgment reveals the following circumstances.

1) On June 9, 2014, the deceased Nonparty (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) entered the Army and served as the staff member of the NAP as the staff member of the NAP. On May 24, 2015, the deceased Nonparty committed suicide against the train on May 27, 2015, which was the date of the incidental return.

2) As a resistant and passive character, the Deceased stated that he/she had received mental treatment three times a month between his/her ability to adapt group life to his/her father at middle school in the second year of middle school, and that he/she did not shift his/her specific plans and actions, even though he/she did not move to his/her parents and the head of his/her school in the third year of high school.

3) On June 11, 2014, the deceased, immediately after entering the army training center, conducted on June 11, 2014, is required to conduct a precise diagnosis, and the early discharge from military service is predicted due to an accident in the military service. However, on June 25, 2014 and July 6, 2014, the Army Training Center’s adaptation to Military Life, which was implemented on the Army Training Center (hereinafter “The Army Training Center’s Recovery risk type of suicide and mental disorder”), was managed as C-class-class-class-class-class-based soldiers (designated as care soldiers for a given period of time when they were transferred to their military units) by being transferred to their military units.

4) As a result of the inspection of aptitude adaptation conducted on May 1, 2015, the Deceased determined as follows: “The possibility of incidental adaptation or accidents to military life is predicted, and that it is necessary to provide immediate expert assistance and assistance. suicide, military escape, and adaptation disorder is predicted. In other words, suicide, school life problems, good conduct problems, family conflict, and personal relation issues are required.” However, in the affiliated military unit, the Deceased did not receive counseling from a counselor and a psychiatrist on the ground that the Deceased refused a meeting with a counselor specializing in military life on the ground that he/she refused a meeting with a counselor specializing in military life on the ground that he/she was a middle school, and did not manage it in connection with his/her family.

5) Before the deceased’s death, the remaining remains in the past, “it is too difficult to make every one year of military life. b) one of the following actions, she was able to attend, answer, her answer, her during that period, she was fluencing, and her fluencing, and her fluencing, it was not possible to do so. There was a limit on the gender. On the other hand, the fine for negligence was flucing down at first. The number of the executives and the above appointments have been expressed in the first half of the year. It is no longer possible for the senior officers and the above appointments to do so. Moreover, even if they want to do so, they do not want to do so, and do not want to do so. I first indicate that it is a crime that is a family member, regardless of whether they would have suffered any damage, as I want to do so.”

6) Medical opinions stated in the Army Headquarters Review List are presumed to have been presumed to have been committed by the deceased, who had continuously lower self-esteem, emotional expression and self-determination from middle school to middle school, difficulties in social misstatement and personal relations, chronic depression, sporadic suicide and sporadic suicide, and a life in which emotional exchanges with others were low. Due to these mental vulnerabilitys, there was an indive and mental stress in the military life, and the suicide is presumed to have been committed. This is presumed to have been committed by the military unit under its control. Although there were abnormal opinions on the past illness and personality tests of the deceased, there was no proper response but to take proper measures. Accordingly, the death of the deceased is deemed to have been caused by the combination of mental stress caused by his or her personal vulnerability and military life, and inappropriate countermeasures in his or her military unit.”

C. Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, there is sufficient room to presume that the deceased’s symptoms have deteriorated due to extreme stress and mental distress before his suicide, thereby causing suicide in the state where his normal perception, ability to choose an act, and mental suppression has considerably deteriorated. As such, proximate causal relation between the deceased’s performance of duties and his death is likely to be recognized. The personal vulnerability, such as the character of the deceased, is likely to have partly affected the resolution of suicide, and it does not change on the contrary.

D. Nevertheless, the lower court did not closely examine the details, motive, etc. of the deceased’s suicide, and denied the causal relationship between the deceased’s death and the performance of his/her duties solely on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on proximate causal relationship between the deceased’s death and the performance of his/her duties under the Veterans Compensation Act, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment below regarding the conjunctive claim is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The remaining appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)