1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s refusal to pay pension for wounds issued on March 11, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

The reasoning of the judgment of this court which partially accepted the judgment of the court of first instance is "1. Grounds for Disposition" from "2. Grounds for Disposition"

A. The plaintiff's assertion;

B. Until the relevant laws and regulations, the relevant part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is identical to that of the relevant part of the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance (Articles 4 through 4, 12, 9, and 10). As such, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

In the judgment of the first instance court, the diseases caused by official duties under Article 23 (1) of the Military Pension Act, which are the requirements for the payment of pension for wounds under Article 23 (1) of the Military Pension Act, refers to the cases where the diseases occur due to official duties, so in order to recognize the diseases due to official duties, there must be causation between official duties and diseases

However, the method and degree of proof is not necessarily required to be proved clearly by direct evidence, but it is sufficient if it is proved to the extent that the proximate causal relation between official duties and diseases can be inferred by indirect facts such as the health condition at the time of service, existence of existing diseases, the nature of work and the working environment of the military personnel, and the transfer of the same disease to another military personnel working at the same workplace, based on the health and physical conditions of the military personnel in question, and it also includes the cases where the basic disease or existing disease that can normally work is caused by excessive work and is rapidly aggravated at a natural proceeding speed or above.

In light of the following circumstances that are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence, evidence Nos. 2, 3, 6, and 8’s testimony, evidence Nos. 2, 3, 6, and 8, witness F of the Party concerned, and testimony of G, it may be recognized that there exists a proximate causal relationship between the Plaintiff’s official duties performed during the military service period and the Plaintiff’s waste cancer incurred to the Plaintiff.