According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that (1) the Plaintiff was accompanied by the Defendant’s 10th of Apr. 28, 1990, and was employed in the field industry company producing 3rd of 5th of 19-ri-dong, Eup, other than those subject to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and (2) the Plaintiff appeared to have worked as a press room on Oct. 24, 1990, while receiving a medical examination from the hospital 10th of 9 p.m. (hereinafter referred to as the “1st of the instant case”) for about 10 days after receiving a medical examination from the hospital 10th of 190 p.m., the Plaintiff was discharged from the hospital 10th of 19 p.m. to 10 p.m., 197 p.m. at the hospital 20 p.m., and the Plaintiff was discharged from the hospital 10th of 19 p.m. to 10th of 192 p.m.

2. However, according to the records, the plaintiff joined the above company for a long time from May 24, 1990 to August 2, 1990, after which he joined the above company, the plaintiff was diagnosed with brain light in order to undergo a medical examination, and from the end of May 1990 to the end of August 2, 190, the plaintiff removed lump-sum and 1-2 of the company employees in the previous planned site for relocation with one person and her employees, and after cement work on the floor, the factory relocation work on the floor until September 1990 after the completion of the factory relocation work to the new factory, while he had been suffering from mental and physical stress at the new factory on the site of 1990, the plaintiff was diagnosed with her brain light, which had been diagnosed with the above 16-2 medical stress at the office before the above 16-2 medical examination, and thus, it can be deemed that there is a serious stress or mental stress between the defendant's office and the disposition agency.

In addition, if the first brain color is an occupational accident having a causal relationship with the business, the second brain color of this case, which occurred thereafter, is highly likely to have become naturally aggravated, and if so, there are sufficient grounds to regard the second brain disaster of this case as an occupational accident due to the business.

If so, the court below should have judged the propriety of the plaintiff's claim after considering whether the first accident of this case constitutes an occupational accident which has a proximate causal relation with the business, and then, if the second accident of this case falls under an occupational accident, it should have judged the propriety of the plaintiff's claim after examining whether there is a proximate causal relation with the first accident. However, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim for reasons as stated in the above holding, but it cannot be said that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on occupational accident and by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

There is reason to point this out.

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)