2. The Defendant on January 21, 2015

In November 2013, the deceased listed D on KON, received an accountant's office in the process of promoting KOSDAQ listing in 2014, and in February 2014, Novonisk, a multinational pharmaceutical company, refused the progress of technology transfer contracts essential for D's listing on the KOSDAQ, and so accumulated extreme overwork and occupational stress.

In light of the characteristics of the work in charge of finance, the deceased was frequently engaged in a contact or a meeting to attract investment money, and even before the outbreak day, the deceased was at low meal and drinking in order to discuss the work related to the license technology transfer contract.

As such, the deceased’s occupational course, stress, contact, drinking, etc. aggravated the existing disease of the deceased, such as high blood pressure, etc., the disease of the deceased constitutes an occupational accident, as the deceased’s death occurs, and thus, constitutes an occupational accident.

Therefore, the instant disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s application for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses should be revoked as it is unlawful.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The “occupational accident” under Article 5 subparag. 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to an accident caused by an employee’s occupational accident while performing his/her duties, so there is a proximate causal relation between the occupational accident and the accident. In this case, the causal relation between the employee’s occupational accident must be proved by the assertion.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du8606, Oct. 27, 2004). The proximate causal relation is not necessarily required to be clearly proved by direct evidence, but is a health condition at the time of employment based on the health and physical conditions of the relevant employee, and an existing disease.