The case holding that the death of a deceased soldier who was killed due to his/her death while receiving a decoration from his/her superior on a holiday constitutes a death on duty related to the performance of duties provided for in the proviso of Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act even if it was illegal since his/her private appraisal was somewhat open and the degree of exercise of discipline was only illegal.

The case holding that the death of a deceased soldier who was killed due to his/her death while receiving a decoration from his/her superior on a holiday constitutes a death on duty related to the performance of duties provided for in the proviso of Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act even if it was illegal since his/her private appraisal was somewhat open and the degree of exercise of discipline was only illegal.

Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act, Article 4 (5) of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State, Article 7 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons of Distinguished

Supreme Court Decision 80Da1600 decided Dec. 23, 1980 (Gong1981, 13515) 90Da16108 decided Aug. 13, 1991 (Gong1991, 2327) 92Nu6006 decided Dec. 22, 1992 (Gong193,622)

Plaintiff 1 and five others, Plaintiffs, Seoul General Law Firm, Attorneys Yoon Sang-il et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na53383 delivered on April 9, 1991

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 are also examined.

In light of the records, the fact-finding of the court below is acceptable, and there is no error in the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation, and if the reason why the deceased non-party 1 (the deceased) died as recognized by the court below, the non-party 2 inflicted an assault on the deceased is somewhat a private appraisal, but even if so, the court below's determination that the deceased's death in relation to his duties as a soldier and his bereaved family is entitled to compensation for death, survivor pension, etc. from the defendant under the Act on the Honorable Treatment, etc. of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State Compensation Act, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the duties under the proviso of Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act.

In addition, the court below cannot be deemed to have acknowledged that the above non-party 2 exercised a decoration in this case was illegal or has failed to examine it, and even if the degree of the exercise of a decoration by the above non-party 2 was only illegal, it shall not affect the outcome of this case, and the death of the deceased is not related to his performance of duties. Therefore, the argument is without merit.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, 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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)