1. 원심은 원고가 1974.11.5.부터 2002.7.30.까지 체신부 소속 C과 B에서 귓속 삽입형 이어폰을 착용하고 대북·외교 통신정보 수집 및 국가안보 관련 감청 업무(이하 '감청 업무'라고 한다)를 수행하였고, 2002. 7. 31. 이후부터는 B의 비소음부서에서 행정업무를 수행한 사실 등 그 판시와 같은 사실을 인정한 다음, ① 원고의 '우측 귀 이명 및 감각신경성 난청 (이하 '이 사건 상병'이라 한다)은 그 발병원인을 확정하기 어려운 질환으로서 다양한 원인을 의심할 수 있는데, 원고에게 노출된 소음의 크기, 노출정도 등에 대한 구체적인 증명이 없는 점, ② 진료기록감정의는 이어폰 착용으로 인한 소음성 난청은 양측 귀에 대칭적으로 고주파 영역부터 서서히 진행되는 경우가 흔한데, 원고의 경우 좌측 귀는 정상 청력이므로 이어폰 착용과 소음성 난청 사이의 관련성은 낮다는 의견을 제시하고 있는 점, ③ 소음에 의해 비대칭성 난청이 발병하는 경우는 주로 왼쪽 귀에 소음성 난청이 발병한다는 의학적 견해가 있는 점, ④ 원고가 감청업무를 수행할 당시 이비인후과 관련 진료를 받은 적이 있으나, 그 진료내용 및 청력검사 결과를 확인할 수 없어 그 당시에 소음성 난청이 발병하였다고 단정하기 어려운 점, ⑤ 원고는 감청업무를 그만 둔 이후인 2002. 12. 13. 비로소 이 사건 상병을 진단받았고 진단 당시 이틀 전부터 우측 귀가 들리지 않는다고 호소하였는데, 한쪽 귀에만 발병한 돌발성 난청은 대부분 바이러스 감염에 의한 신경염증 또는 혈액순환 장해로 인한 허혈성 신경염이 원인인 점, ⑥ 원고와 함께 근무한 동료 직원들이 난청으로 공무상 요양승인을 받았으나 원고와 동일한 상황이었는지 확인할 수 없는 점을 종합하면, 원고가 감청업무로 소음과 스트레스에 노출됨으로써 이 사건 상병이 발병하였거나 자연적 진행경과 이상으로 악화되었다고 보기 어렵다고 판단하였다.

2. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

A. The “official disease” which becomes the requirement for payment of expenses incurred in the performance of public duties as prescribed by the Public Officials Pension Act refers to a disease caused by the performance of official duties. As such, there should be causation between the occurrence of official duties and disease, and the causal relationship should be attested by the party asserting it. However, such causal relationship does not necessarily have to be proved clearly in medical and natural science, and where proximate causal relationship is recognized from a normative standpoint, such causal relationship should be deemed as proven (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du32898, Jun. 11, 2015).

B. Comprehensively taking account of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, etc., there is considerable room to deem that the instant injury or disease was caused or aggravated beyond nature by performing a noise exposure service for about 27 years in the Plaintiff’s case, etc.: ① In light of the characteristics of the wiretapping work performed by wearing earphones within working hours and concentrating sound information, and the warning of the degree of harm caused by long-term earphone wearing to the audience; and the recognition of medical care for the E’s noise distress in which the Plaintiff performed the wiretapping work together with the Plaintiff, it can be sufficiently inferred that the Plaintiff’s wiretapping work constitutes a noise exposure service that may cause noise distress.

(2) On May 10, 199, the Plaintiff complained of and received medical treatment from the F Medical Center for this name and inception. The medical record includes a statement to the effect that the Plaintiff asked the F Medical Center to undergo a standard prudent test on the basis of suspicion of 'J'. Therefore, it is difficult to readily conclude that the instant injury and disease was caused only by the Plaintiff when the Plaintiff works in a non-noise department. Rather, considering that at the time of receiving medical treatment, the Plaintiff could not confirm the result of the cruction test even if it is impossible to confirm the result of the cruction after the lapse of the time, the Plaintiff could have experienced the symptoms of the actual cruction.

③ On December 13, 2002, the medical records of the DB Medical Center stated that the Plaintiff complained of “the Plaintiff had symptoms of interest prior to the date, and the right return from the date prior to the date.” Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s disclosure of the Plaintiff’s duties outside the scope of the Security Regulations is prohibited, so it is clearly stated that the Plaintiff’s disclosure of the Plaintiff’s duties outside the scope of the Plaintiff’s duties was prohibited, and thus, the Plaintiff’s continued aggravation of hearing ability is difficult.” In light of the organization and characteristics of the B’s organization, it cannot be deemed that there was no ground for the Plaintiff’s explanation at all, and therefore, it is limited to the grounds for deeming that the injury of the Plaintiff was caused after the disease in this case was out of the wiretapping.

④ On February 13, 2003, the medical record of the Gyeonghee University Hospital was recorded to the effect that “the Plaintiff was diagnosed with the right-to-right-to-hand hearing and applied to the principal source for additional medical treatment because it was not returned to the right-to-hand hearing from two months before it was normal and it was not returned to the right-to-hand hearing.” However, it cannot be ruled out through the written request for medical treatment, etc. that the Plaintiff started to receive medical treatment for the right-to-hand hearing from December 13, 2002, and that it was stated in the medical record as is.

⑤ The noise risk hearing is generally accepted by the academic world that the case of the loss of ear-to-face one by both ear is not rare and both ear-to-face one by both ear. The noise risk hearing is also accepted by the academic community that both ear-to-face one by both ear-to-face one by each ear-to-face one by each ear-to-face one by each ear-to-face one by each ear-to-face one by each ear-to-face one by each ear-to-face one by each ear-to-face one by each ear-to-face one by each ear-to-face one by each ear-to-face one by each ear-to-face one by each ear-to-face one by each ear-to-face one by each ear-to-face one by each ear-to-face one by each

(Ⅰ) Although it is difficult to accurately identify the causes of the instant outbreak, it is presumed that most cases were caused by virus infection and blood disorder. In fact, the Plaintiff would have recovered from 41-61% patient with the administration of the instant medication under such presumption. However, the Plaintiff was subject to long-term drug treatment for the instant injury, but there was no change in symptoms, and did not reveal the causes of the outbreak such as virus infection and virosis disorder. Therefore, it is difficult to readily conclude that the instant injury was caused by virus infection and virosis disorder. Nevertheless, the lower court denied proximate causal relationship between the Plaintiff’s wiretapping work and the instant injury. In so doing, the lower court erred by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. 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 Yong-deok

Justices Kim Gin-young

Chief Justice Lee Dong-won