[1] In a case where an existing disease was aggravated or aggravated due to excessive education and training or performance of duty, whether there is a proximate causal relation between education and training, performance of duty, and injury or disease (affirmative), and the degree of proof thereof

[2] The case holding that a proximate causal relationship may be inferred between a soldier's performance of his/her duties, the occurrence of injury or disease, and the aggravation of his/her normal daily life, where: (a) a person who was unable to obtain excessive stress in the military and military life after entering the military; and (b) a person who suffered excessive stress in the course of performing his/her duties after entering the military; and (c) his/her ability to adapt to the military;

[1] Article 4 (1) 6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State / [2] Article 4 (1) 6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support

[1] Supreme Court Decision 99Du331 delivered on June 8, 1999 (Gong1999Ha, 1423) Supreme Court Decision 2005Du6379 Delivered on January 26, 2006

Plaintiff

Head of Msan Veterans Branch Office

Busan High Court Decision 2004Nu2806 delivered on January 14, 2005

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The court below, based on the selected evidence, found facts as stated in its holding, and found that the plaintiff had shown awareness function close to the boundary intelligence before entering the Navy, but had no special boundary intelligence symptoms, and there was no mental division symptoms. The plaintiff was hospitalized in the process of serving in the Navy due to symptoms corresponding to boundary intelligence, and that mental division symptoms began since the time of discharge. However, there was no evidence to find that the plaintiff suffered from wounds during military service, there was a suspicion that the plaintiff suffered from wounds during military service, or caused a mental disorder due to other selected soldiers, and that there was no evidence to find that the intelligence was reduced or caused a mental division. Rather, there was no evidence to find that the plaintiff's symptoms among the above symptoms were naturally intelligent during the process of performing military service and thus, it is difficult to recognize that there was a causal relationship between the plaintiff and the person who rendered distinguished services to the State.

However, it is difficult to accept such fact-finding and judgment of the court below.

The term "injury during education and training or in the performance of duty (including illness 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 military personnel or police officer during education and training or in the performance of duty. Thus, in order to be different from the above provision, there should be a proximate causal relationship between education and training or in the performance of duty and the injury or disease. In order to be different from the above provision, there should be a direct cause for education and training or in the performance of duty, and there should be a causal relationship in the case of injury or disease, as well as in the case of the recurrence or aggravation of an existing disease due to the overlap of course of education and training or in the performance of duty due to education and training or in the performance of duty. The causal relationship must be proved if there is a proximate causal relationship between the injury or disease in consideration of all the circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Du3331, Jun. 8, 1999>

기록에 의하면, 사람의 지능은 지능지수(IQ)에 따라 정신지체, 경계성 지능(경계선 지능), 정상지능으로 분류할 수 있고, 일반적으로 정신지체는 70 이하의 지능지수에, 경계성 지능은 71 내지 84까지의 지능지수에, 정상지능은 85 이상의 지능지수에 해당하나, 정신지체 및 경계성 지능에 해당하는지 여부는 지능지수뿐만 아니라 사회 적응능력을 함께 고려하여 판단하므로 지능지수 자체만으로는 정신지체나 경계성 지능에 해당하더라도 사회 적응능력의 장애나 결함이 없는 경우에는 정신지체나 경계성 지능으로 보지 아니하는 사실, 원고는 고등학교 때 시행한 지능검사결과 지능지수가 경계성 지능에 해당하는 84로 나타나 경계성 지능 증상을 보일 소인을 지니고 있었을 뿐, 고등학교 3학년 때에는 학급반장을 맡아 지도력을 발휘하고 급우들의 신망을 얻기도 하고 한국산업인력공단에서 실시한 ‘정보기기 운용 기능사’ 자격증을 획득하기도 하였으며, 고등학교 졸업 후에는 제1종 보통 자동차운전면허증을 취득하기도 하였던 사실, 원고는 군입대 후 6주간의 기초군사훈련을 받으면서 5주째의 훈련을 마치고 마지막 1주가 남았을 때 흡연을 하다가 발각이 되어 같은 훈련동기생들과 신병훈련소에서 퇴소를 하지 못한 채 유급되어 6주간의 기초군사훈련을 다시 받기는 하였지만 원고가 두 번의 기초군사훈련 및 전산병으로서의 교육을 받으며 가족들에게 보낸 편지에서 일반인들과 다름없이 지극히 정상적인 의사소통을 하고 있었던 사실, 원고는 기초군사훈련 및 전산교육을 마치고 1999. 2. 27. 해군대학 행정부 군수처에 배치되어 전산병으로 근무를 하던 중 정서적 불안증세, 주의산만, 업무능력의 현저한 부족 등 부적응 증상을 보였고, 이로 인하여 같은 해 11. 15. 해군작전사령부 작전참모처 특수전과로 전출되어 전산병으로 근무하게 되었는데 역시 그곳에서도 사무실 무단이탈, 지시사항에 대한 이해도 저하, 판단능력의 부족 등으로 매일 시행되는 부서 업무를 따라가지 못하는 등 부적응 증상을 보여, 2000. 2. 19. 정신지체 의증의 진단하에 국군진해병원 정신과에 입원하기에 이르른 사실, 위 입원 중 작성된 간호기록지에 현병력은 원고가 부대 내에서 업무수행에 어려움을 느끼고 자살사고가 지속되어 외래 진료 후 입원하게 되었다는 것으로, 환자의 주된 호소는 자꾸 잊어버리고 따라가기 힘들다는 것으로 기재되어 있고, 그 밖에 상급자들이 자신에게 문서작성 작업을 잘 하지 못한다고 자주 지적하고 자신이 잘못한 일이 아닌 것까지 자신에게 미루며, 부대에서의 생활 및 교육이 어렵다는 원고의 진술과 그룹치료 시간에 엉뚱한 이야기를 자주 해서 타 환자들의 웃음을 사고, 질문 내용을 잘못 이해하여 횡설수설하며, 자주 긴장하고 특히 선임자 및 윗사람들 앞에서는 더욱 긴장하여 말을 더듬으며 자존감이 저하되어 있다는 간호장교의 관찰 내용 등이 기재되어 있는 사실, 국군진해병원 담당 군의관은 동아대학교병원 정신과에 원고의 심리검사를 의뢰하였는바, 동아대학교병원 정신과 담당의사는 같은 해 5. 1. 심리검사를 시행하여 원고가 경계선 수준의 지적 수행능력을 보이는데, 사고력, 판단력, 계획력과 같은 고차적 인지 기능들은 경도의 정신지체 수준으로 더 낮은 수행력을 보여주고 있고, 정서적으로 군입대 후 심리적으로 상처받았다고 여기고 우울감, 두려움, 열등감, 절망감, 대인과민성 등을 느끼면서 스트레스를 주는 직무상황에서는 충동적인 행동화를 나타내는 것 같다고 검사결과를 보고한 사실, 위 심리검사 결과를 보고받은 국군진해병원 의무조사심의위원회는 같은 해 8. 1. 향후 보직조정을 통하여 원고의 군복무가 가능하다고 판단하였고, 이에 따라 원고는 퇴원과 동시에 해군작전사령부 정보통신단에 배치되었으나, 퇴원 후 전산병으로서의 직무를 수행할 수 없음은 물론 청소 등의 단순작업을 과업으로 부여하여도 통제가 되지 아니하고 내무생활 중 야간에도 수면을 이루지 못하고 돌아다니는 등 상태가 불안정하여 같은 해 10. 13. 국군진해병원에 재입원조치되고 국군마산병원으로 전원되어 치료를 받았으며, 2001. 2. 13. 경계성 지능 진단을 받고 퇴원한 후 같은 해 3. 1. 만기 전역한 사실, 원고는 전역 직후인 같은 해 3. 13. 대구 소재 대동병원에 입원하여 경계성 지능, 정신분열증, 분열성정동장애 등으로 진단받은 사실 등을 알 수 있다.

In light of the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, although the Plaintiff’s intelligence index itself before entering the military was difficult to have a boundary intelligence itself, it does not seem to have any trouble or defect in social adaptation ability and normally lead a daily life. Since entering the military, a closed military life where strict regulations and control is performed, unlike the general society, it is difficult to properly perform his or her duties, and the superior’s quality was transferred to another military unit due to his or her ability, and the newly transferred military units still have been in charge of duties as a computer soldier due to the decline in understanding of the instructions and lack of judgment ability, it is reasonable to view that the military personnel’s duty as a soldier and his or her ability to adapt to daily life, and thus, the causal link or aggravation of the disease in this case can be inferred or aggravated between his or her occupational duty and the occurrence or aggravation of the disease in this case.

Therefore, the lower court needs to closely examine whether the Plaintiff, with an intelligence index of boundary intelligence, was subject to excessive stress in the course of performing his/her duties as a computerized soldier in the military service, and whether the cause of boundary intelligence symptoms, mental fissionation, or aggravation is the cause of aggravation, and then determine the existence of proximate causal relationship between the superior branch of this case. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on causal relationship between the Plaintiff’s education and training or performance of duties as a soldier and the injury and disease of this case, solely based on the grounds stated in its reasoning, and the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)