[1] Details of a causal relationship required to constitute an injury under Article 2(1)2 of the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation (i.e., occupational performance of duties and proximate causal relationship between injury and disease), and the burden of proof thereof / Method and degree of proof / Whether the excess or stress may be caused by the outbreak or aggravation of a disease, and whether the causal relationship is congested immediately on the ground that the excess or stress was overwork and stressed in the course of performing duties (negative)

[2] In a case where Gap, who worked as the chief of the law office of the air force, lost the right hearing due to occupational stress, etc. and applied for the registration of a person eligible for veteran's compensation, but the chief of the competent veterans branch, issued a rejection disposition against Gap, the case holding that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, even if there was a considerable challenge to the noise lawsuit-related affairs performed by Gap, and thus, it cannot be readily concluded that there was a proximate causal relation between the performance of duties and the disease

[1] Article 2 (1) 2 of the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran's Compensation / [2] Article 2 (1) 2 of the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran's Compensation

[1] Supreme Court Decision 98Du4740 delivered on May 2, 198 (Gong1998Ha, 1782)

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Young-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The head of the Gyeong-nam Veterans Branch Office (name before the change: the head of the Jinju Veterans Branch Office)

Busan High Court (Chowon) Decision 2015Nu12031 decided October 19, 2016

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. A soldier who was discharged from military service or retired from military service by suffering from wounds (including diseases) in the course of performing his/her duties or education and training not directly related to national defense and security, or the protection of the lives and property of the people, shall be deemed a soldier, police officer, and police officer defined by Article 2(1)2 of the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation (hereinafter

Article 2(2) of the Veterans’ Compensation Act provides that the detailed criteria and scope of persons eligible for veteran’s compensation shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree. According to delegation, Article 2(1) [Attached Table 1] [Attachment Table 1] 11 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation stipulates that “A person whose disease or aggravation (referring to the occurrence or aggravation of the disease rapidly higher than the natural progress) is medically recognized to have a substantial causal relationship with his/her duty or education and training” as one of the requirements for persons eligible for veteran’s compensation.

2. In order to fall under the wounds determined by Article 2(1)2(a) of the Patriots and Veterans Compensation Act, there is a proximate causal relation between education and training or performance of duties and the injury or disease thereof, and the causal relation between the performance of duties, etc. and the injury or disease must be attested by the party asserting it. The method and degree of proof does not necessarily have to be proved by direct evidence in a medical or natural science, and it is sufficient if it is proved to the extent that the proximate causal relation between the injury and disease can be inferred by indirect facts such as the health condition before the performance of duties, the existence of existing diseases, the nature of the duties engaged in, and the working environment of the relevant soldier, etc. However, it is difficult to presume that there was a causal relation immediately because the overwork or stress can be the cause of the outbreak or aggravation of the disease, and it was overwork and stress during the performance of duties (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du4740, May 22, 198).

3. On the following grounds, the lower court determined that there was a proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff’s instant disease and the instant disease during his/her duty while in military service, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s disease occurred due to stress arising from performing his/her duty, such as noise litigation

A. The issue was that the Plaintiff’s work as the chief of the law office of the Air Force, while serving as the chief of the law office of the Air Force○○○○○○○, and that the Plaintiff performed the duty of paying compensation for damages to a large number of victims after the judgment of the court on noise lawsuit. Therefore, considering that the Plaintiff’s work was conducted by one competent law officer and one judicial officer, it is reasonable to avoid work, and this is a sufficient cause for stress. Mental and physical assessment shows that the Plaintiff is highly likely to suffer stress from work at the time of the outbreak of the instant disease.

B. Medically, “high-level stress” is known as one of the causes of a sudden distress. Although it is known that the viral infection, fratitis, etc. are the causes of a sudden distress, I express my opinion to the effect that the said causes may be excluded from the causes of the instant disease, other than high-level stress.

C. At the time of the occurrence of the instant disease, the Plaintiff did not have been exposed to noise or had a large impact from outside, and there was no serious problem with the eronom, even before being employed as the chief of the legal office of the Air Force ○○○○, after entering the front physical examination of the Plaintiff.

4. However, examining the above legal principles, it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

Even though the lower court’s reasoning stated in the affairs related to noise litigation conducted by the Plaintiff, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Plaintiff was under high-level stress on the part of the Plaintiff. This is because it cannot be readily concluded that there was “high-level stress on the part of the Plaintiff,” without examining specifically how much the Plaintiff’s duties were excessive, by examining the Plaintiff’s work volume and work hours, the specific contents of the Plaintiff’s work, the difference between the Plaintiff’s work volume and work details with other legal officers in charge of noise litigation in the Gun other than the Plaintiff, and the work division between the relevant legal officers and legal professionals. As long as such premise is shaken, it is solely on the ground that the Plaintiff was under high-level stress on the part of the Plaintiff’s work due to the Plaintiff’s performance of noise litigation and the existence of some stress on the part of the Plaintiff. Accordingly, it cannot be readily concluded that proximate causal relation exists between the Plaintiff’s work performance and the instant disease.

Nevertheless, solely based on its stated reasoning, the lower court acknowledged the proximate causal relationship between the Plaintiff’s performance of duties and the instant disease. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on proximate causal relationship between the performance of duties, which is the requirement for recognition of persons eligible for veteran’s compensation, and by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby adversely

5. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim So-young (Presiding Justice)