[1] In a case where a proximate causal relationship is acknowledged between a soldier and others who committed suicide while on duty, education and training, and his/her death, whether a person eligible for veteran’s compensation constitutes “the death during his/her duty performance or education and training” under Article 2(1) of the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation (affirmative), and whether a proximate causal relationship exists between his/her duty, education and training, and death may be excluded from a person eligible for veteran’s compensation

[2] 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 service, and the matter to be considered when determining whether a proximate causal relationship

[3] In a case where it is unclear whether a subordinate provision is inconsistent with a superior provision of a statute and it is possible to interpret the meaning of a subordinate provision to conform with a superior provision of a statute, whether the subordinate provision may declare invalidation on the ground that the subordinate provision is in

[1] Article 2(1)1 and (3)1 of the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation / [2] Article 2(1) of the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation / [3] Articles 75 and 95 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 2017Du47885 Decided February 13, 2020 (Gong2020Sang, 627) / [1] Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Du27363 Decided June 18, 2012 (Gong2012Ha, 1300) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2011Du32898 Decided June 11, 2015 (Gong2015Ha, 983) Supreme Court Decision 2012Du25637 Decided July 9, 2015

Plaintiff (Law Firm Rate, Attorneys Ha-hee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The head of the Chungcheongnam-gu Veterans Branch Office

Daejeon High Court Decision 2016Nu13203 decided March 30, 2017

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Whether the person constitutes a person eligible for veteran's compensation (ground of appeal Nos. 1 and 2)

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 “A person eligible for veteran’s compensation, his/her bereaved family members, or his/her family members (including persons specified by other Acts as eligible for subsidization, etc.) shall receive assistance under this Act.” Article 2(1)1 provides that “Where a soldier, a police officer, or a fire-fighting official who died in the line of duty or during education and training (including a person who died of a disease) not directly related to the national defense and security or the protection of the lives and property of the people, or who died in the line of duty or during education and training (including a person who died of a disease) due to any of the following causes, a person who meets the requirements specified in any of the subparagraphs of paragraphs (1) and (4) shall be excluded from a person eligible for veteran’s compensation, his/her bereaved family members, or his/her family members, without any inevitable cause, or who seriously violated his/her superior’s order or order.”

If a proximate causal relationship exists between a soldier, etc. who committed suicide while serving in the military and his/her duty or education and training, it shall be deemed that the case constitutes “the death during the performance of his/her duty or education and training” under Article 2(1) of the Patriots and Veterans Compensation Act. Even though the proximate causal relationship exists between his/her duty or education and his/her death, it shall not be excluded from the veteran’s compensation on the ground that the death was caused by suicide or that the death was not committed in a state where free will was completely excluded (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Du27363, Jun. 18

The proximate causal relation between a soldier, etc. and his/her death may be acknowledged in the event that a soldier, etc. is presumed to have committed suicide in a situation where a disease, such as depression, occurs due to overwork or stress, or an overwork or stress overlaps with the main cause of a disease, such as depression, etc., and the normal perception or judgment ability, and the mental suppression ability of the disease cannot be expected to be significantly different from that of the disease, and a reasonable judgment is not possible. In determining proximate causal relation, the following should be comprehensively taken into account: (a) the details, character, and work quantity of the person in charge of the suicide; (b) the degree and intensity of the disease; and (c) the developments leading up to the occurrence of the disease, such as the depression, the age of the person in charge of the suicide; (d) the physical and psychological situation; and (e) the surrounding circumstances leading to the suicide (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du25

B. In a case where the non-party, who is the plaintiff, admitted to the ○○ Training Center on September 13, 2007 and was trained by the △△△△△△ on November 2, 2007, and was on November 6, 2007, and went away from the military unit on November 6, 2007, and committed suicide, the lower court determined that there was no proximate causal relation between the non-party’s death and duty. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding proximate causal relation, or by violating the duty of explanation

2. Whether the Enforcement Decree of the former Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation (amended by Presidential Decree No. 29465, Dec. 31, 2018; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Veterans’ Compensation Act”) [Attachment 1] 15 is invalid (Ground of appeal No. 3)

(a) State’s legal system itself forms a unification, so conflicts between upper and lower norms must be set aside to the maximum extent possible. Moreover, if it is not clear whether a lower statute conflicts with upper laws and regulations, and it is possible to interpret the meaning of a lower statute to conform with upper statutes through the method of statutory interpretation, the lower statute should not be declared invalid on the ground that the lower statute is in violation of upper statutes.

B. The lower court determined that it is difficult to view the provision of Article 2(1)1 and [Attachment 1] 15 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Enforcement Decree of the Veterans Compensation Act as null and void on the ground that the phrase “a state in which free will is excluded” and “medically recognized person” can be sufficiently interpreted within the scope of proximate causal relation as prescribed by the superior law. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the above legal doctrine, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation, etc. of the above Enforcement Decree, as otherwise

3. Conclusion

The Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Dong-won (Presiding Justice)