The case holding that a proximate causal relation between the outbreak of military service and the outbreak of mental fission cannot be acknowledged on the sole basis of the evidence submitted by the applicant who has rendered distinguished services to the State, which shows that the mental fission that occurred during the military service was caused or aggravated as an internal physical or genetic source of the applicant for registration of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State, and that it is difficult to presume that the mental fission was caused or aggravated

Article 4 (1) 6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State

Plaintiff

Head of Cheongju Veterans Branch Office

Daejeon High Court Decision 2008Nu2062 Decided January 8, 2009

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The court below, based on its adopted evidence, found facts as indicated in its reasoning. The court below determined that the Plaintiff’s mental division was unlawful based on the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s health condition before entering the military was good and had no mental disease symptoms; (b) the Plaintiff showed symptoms of mental division only after one year and five months passed since entering the military; (c) the Plaintiff was under stress at the position as a commander of a decentralization; (d) the closed military life, which is subject to strict regulations and control unlike the general society, seems to have been very serious and easible character, which makes it difficult for the Plaintiff to feel severe and easible character; and (e) the Plaintiff’s disposition on the ground that there was no special circumstance that there was a cause of mental division other than stress that the Plaintiff received while serving in the military, and that there was no person who was treated with mental illness before the outbreak of the Plaintiff; and (e) the mental fission was a disease that may occur when the Plaintiff received environmental stress from a genetic or biologically weak individual; and (e) the Plaintiff’s mental division was found unlawful between the Plaintiff’s mental stress and 7 years.

2. However, it is difficult to accept the fact-finding and judgment of the court below as they are.

The term "an injury during education and training or in the performance of duty (including a disease in the line of duty)" referred to in Article 4 (1) 6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State refers to the injury or disease of a soldier or police officer during education and training or in the performance of duty. Therefore, in order to be different from the above provision, there is a proximate causal relation between education and training or in the performance of duty and the injury or disease thereof, and the causal relation between the performance of duty, etc. and the injury or disease must be proved by the party asserting it (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du5617, Sept. 23, 2003

However, according to the records, the plaintiff was showing symptoms, such as consultation with his superior, on the ground that he was unable to sleep the time of the university prior to the military entrance. The plaintiff's parent was discharged from the military of this case, and was subject to medication due to climatic or yellow disorder after the plaintiff was discharged from each of the disease of this case. The plaintiff had a tendency not to be able to get out of the surrounding people because of passive and violent nature, and it was dependent on as a subordinate soldier in March 2001. However, the plaintiff was conducting education and training and assignment without any particular problem. However, around October 201, it was difficult to see that it was difficult to contact with his superior during the period of the Japanese soldier's leave, and that there was a timely consultation with his psychiatrist and hospital around October 2002. The plaintiff did not have any climatic behavior since 20 years after 200, and the plaintiff did not have any responsibility to get out of 3 years after 3 years after 200.

The following facts and records revealed as follows: (a) the Plaintiff asserted that the military unit was subject to heavy stress from post cancer, who is in the military service; (b) however, the Plaintiff’s assertion merely made it difficult to see that the soldier who committed the above company’s obsesses by causing them to be humiliated; (c) there is no evidence to ascertain what circumstances and circumstances the Plaintiff suffered from the above company’s stress; (d) there is no other evidence to prove that the Plaintiff received from the above company’s life while living in the military; and (e) it is difficult to find the Plaintiff as a military unit with special mental and physical pain or stress compared to the ordinary military unit; (e) it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s unit’s mental disorder and stress were considerably heavy or heavy compared to those of other military units; (e) it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s mental disorder and stress were generated from the occupational division of the Plaintiff’s mental disorder that the Plaintiff could not have aggravated due to symptoms or stress, as it is difficult to find out the symptoms of the Plaintiff’s mental disorder as an average symptoms or stress.

Nevertheless, the court below's decision that there exists a proximate causal relation between the plaintiff's military service and the outbreak of mental fission is erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles as to proximate causal relation. The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)