(영문) 대법원 2020.2.13.선고 2017두47885 판결

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 appeals are dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal on the primary claim (the claim to revoke a non-qualified decision of a person of distinguished service to the State)

A. Article 4(1)5 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (hereinafter referred to as the “Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State”) provides that “The direct causal relationship necessary to be recognized as a soldier or policeman who died on duty” is insufficient simply with the existence of a proximate causal relationship between the performance of duties, education and training, and death. The death must have occurred as the main reason directly related to the national defense, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Du42896, Aug. 18, 2016).

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 the

2. As to the grounds of appeal as to the conjunctive claim (claiming revocation of a determination as not eligible for veteran's compensation)

A. Article 2(1) of the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran's Compensation (hereinafter referred to as the "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 persons specified by other Acts as eligible for assistance, etc. under this Act) shall be provided with assistance under this Act." Article 2(1) of the Act provides that "A person who died 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 or the protection of people's lives and property."

Here, "persons eligible for veteran's compensation" refers to cases where there is a proximate causal relationship between the performance of duties, education and training, and death of a soldier, etc., and the same applies when the death of a soldier, etc. is caused by suicide.

In addition, Article 2(3) of the Patriots and Veterans Compensation Act provides that “If a person meeting the requirements specified in any of the subparagraphs of paragraph (1) dies or is wounded due to any of the following causes (including illness), he/she shall be excluded from a person eligible for veteran’s compensation, his/her bereaved family, or his/her family members registered pursuant to paragraph (1) or Article 4, and thus, “if a person is found to have intentionally or with gross negligence without any inevitable reason, or seriously violated the relevant statutes or his/her superior’s order, he/she shall be deemed to have provided that “if a person is found to have caused gross negligence without any inevitable reason, or if there is no proximate causal relationship between education, training, or duty performance and death, etc., and there is no proximate causal relationship between education

Therefore, whether a soldier’s death in the line of duty or during education and training constitutes “the death in the line of duty or education and training” under Article 2(1) of the Veterans’ Compensation Act shall be determined depending on whether there exists a proximate causal relationship between the soldier’s death in the line of duty or education and training. Even if there is a proximate causal relationship between the soldier’s death in the line of duty or education and training, the soldier’s injury 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 free will was completely excluded (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Du27363, Jun.

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. However, in a case where there is no proof of medical or natural science, and where proximate causal relationship is acknowledged from a normative point of view, it shall be deemed that the military personnel, etc., who should be deemed to have been proven to have caused or aggravated the disease due to overwork or stress, or the main cause of the disease, such as overwork or stress, or overwork or stress, etc., and it shall be presumed that such disease was caused by suicide in such a situation as to make it impossible to expect reasonable judgment due to considerable decrease in the normal perception ability, choice ability, mental suppression power, and so on, the proximate causal relationship may be recognized between the performance of duties and the death. In addition, for the purpose of finding such proximate causal relationship, comprehensive consideration of all the circumstances such as the occurrence of the disease, such as the content, nature, and intensity of duties performed by the person who committed the suicide, general symptoms, age of the person who committed the suicide, physical and psychological situation, and surrounding circumstances surrounding the person who committed suicide, etc.

B. The reasoning of the lower judgment reveals the following circumstances. (1) The deceased Non-Party (hereinafter referred to as “the Deceased”) entered the Army on June 9, 2014 and served as the former Blue Blue Blue Park on the part of the Army, and was on May 24, 2015, on May 27, 2015, the date on which he/she was on which he/she returned to the military unit, committed suicide by going against the train on May 27, 2015, which was on the date on which he/she returned to the military unit. (2) The deceased, as a resistant and passive nature, has been suffering from mental and medical treatment three times during the second year of a middle school, and was on the part of his/her parents and the parents, and was on the part of his/her suicide at a high school, but did not move to the base of action.

3) On June 11, 2014, the Deceased suggested the problems related to mental illness in the Army Training Center’s service conformity examination conducted on June 11, 2014, immediately after the entry, and thus, it is required to conduct a close examination, and it is predicted that he/she was discharged from active service due to an accident in the military service. However, the Deceased was judged as “a type of risk forecast suicide and mental disorder” but on June 2014

25. On July 6, 2014, there is no special difficulty in military life adaptation inspections conducted by the Army Training Center in the Army, and on July 6, 2014, they were transferred to its affiliated units after being judged the "Sho Lake" and managed as C-class volunteer soldier (designated as a volunteer soldier for a certain period of time upon the transfer of a new disease).

4) In the result of the examination of the aptitude adaptation conducted on May 1, 2015, the Deceased is predicted to be able to be able to adapt or cause an accident to the military life, and in other words, it is necessary to provide immediate expert support and assistance. suicide, military escape, and adaptation disorder is predicted. Although the Deceased was judged to require an interview on suicide, school life problems, physical behavior problems, family relationship conflicts, and personal relations issues, “it is necessary to hold an interview with a counselor at the time of a middle school, but in the affiliated military unit, the Deceased did not receive counseling from a counselor and a psychiatrist on the ground that the Deceased refused an interview with a counselor specialized in military life because he/she had a psychiatrist at the time of a middle school.

5) The remaining remains before the deceased’s death is too difficult to say that “I have only one year of military life. I would like to see only one action but b) during that period, she participated in, ging, and ging up to that time, and ging up to that time. They might not be said to have been able to do so. They had to be flickly. They were flickly flick. The fine for the first time was flickly flick. The first time, the executive officers and the above appointments were flickly blicked as you want to do so. It is no longer flick character of the maintenance officer, and there is no refusal to do so to do so. I would like to first indicate that I would like to be flick up with the UN family members regardless of their refusal to do so, and I would like to do so. I would like to say that I would like to do so.

6) Medical opinions listed in the Army Headquarters Review List are presumed to have been presumed to have continuously low self-esteem, emotional expression, and self-help difficulties from middle school at the time of death, difficulties in social misstatement and personal relations, chronic depression, sporadic suicide and sporadic suicide, and a life in which emotional exchanges with others have been low. Due to these mental vulnerabilitys, there have been infalptive quantity and mental stress in the military life, and the depression and mental stress have increased, and thus, it is presumed to have been committed to have died after attempted suicide. While there were abnormal opinions in the past and human nature tests of the deceased in the military unit, the suicide death of the deceased did not take proper measures, and therefore, it is deemed that there was a combination of mental stress caused by his/her personal vulnerability and military life, and inappropriate countermeasures in the military unit."

C. Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, there is sufficient room to presume that the deceased has caused suicide in a state where his/her normal perception, ability to choose action, and mental suppression significantly deteriorated due to extreme stress and mental pain immediately before his/her suicide. As such, proximate causal relation between the deceased’s performance of his/her duties and his/her death seems to be recognized. On the ground that there is a possibility that his/her personal vulnerability, such as the character of the deceased, may have partly influenced the resolution of suicide, it does not change.

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 his/her duty solely on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on proximate causal relationship between the deceased’s death and his/her duty under the Patriots and Veterans Compensation Act, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary

The error affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Conclusion

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