[2] The case holding that the sexual function disorder, which occurred in the course of treating an injury or disease caused by an occupational accident, is also an occupational accident, even though it is an occupational accident in the course of performing the operation to treat such an injury or disease

[2] The case holding that the sexual function disorder, which occurred in the course of treating an injury or disease caused by an occupational accident, is also an occupational accident, even though it is a satisfy that occurred in the course of performing an operation to treat such an injury or disease

2. The proximate causal relation between the work for recognizing occupational accidents and the accident under Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act does not necessarily have to be clearly proved in medical or natural science. Considering all circumstances, even if there is a proximate causal relation between the work and the accident, if it is presumed that there is a proximate causal relation between the work and the accident. Thus, even if there is no direct evidence as to the cause of the disaster, if it is possible to presume the occupational personality based on the trend that can be reasonably explained under the empirical rules based on indirect facts, etc., it shall be deemed that the occupational accident. Furthermore, even if the occupational accident occurred in the course of treating the occupational accident, as long as the proximate causal relation is recognized, even if the medical malpractice occurred in the course of treating the occupational accident, or a new disease due to the side effect of the medicine or treatment method, it shall also be deemed that the occupational accident falls under the occupational accident, and in accordance with the above legal principles as seen earlier, it shall be applied (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du18206, Mar. 9, 199999).

According to the records, there is no evidence suggesting that the plaintiff suffered from chronic chronology or external wound, and there is no direct relationship with the escape symptoms or any surgery thereon, but the credit which caused the cronology may occur in the process of inserting or deducting cronology for urology, and according to the result of the first instance court's inquiry into the head of the East Asia University Hospital (record 296 pages), there is no opinion suggesting that the plaintiff had chronic urine or tuberculosis urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine 4 at the time of the instant accident (the defendant had no additional urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine 1.

On the other hand, according to the result of the commission of physical examination of the head of the Busan White Hospital affiliated with the Incheon Mando University (Records 616 pages), in relation to the plaintiff's Mando Mando Mando Mando Mando Mando, blood flowing through the Mando Mando Mandon was damaged at the time when the Mando Mando Mando Mando Mando Mandon was performed and caused by the Mando Mana's Man's Man's Mando Man's Man's Mando Man's Mandon was not in the state of Mandon's Mando Man's Man's Man's Mandon's Man's Mandon's Mandon's Man's Man'

Nevertheless, under the premise that the Plaintiff’s urology appears to have been caused by chronic infection (the original judgment seems to have been presumed to have been caused by vert tuberculosis, on the basis of various medical opinions, that the Plaintiff’s scarcity pressure pressure is presumed to have been caused by vertebron. However, even according to this, the Plaintiff’s scarcity therapy was cured at the time when the Plaintiff was hospitalized due to a fall accident that occurred on February 1, 1994. As seen earlier, it is difficult to see that the Plaintiff’s urology or tuberculosis was caused by chronic infection, on the ground that there was no opinion of chronic infection or tuberculosis, and thus, it is difficult to see that the Plaintiff’s urine scarbronism was caused by chronic infection.) on the ground as indicated in its reasoning, the judgment that the Plaintiff’s urology disorder, which was caused by the urology or donation, does not constitute occupational accident, cannot be said to have erred by misapprehending the legal principles on proximate causal relation in determining whether the occupational accident occurred, or by mistake it has affected the judgment.

3. Therefore, among the judgment of the court below, the part of the disposition of additional injury and injury to the application for injury and injury of August 16, 200 and the disposition of additional injury and injury and injury to the sexual function disorder of June 11, 2001 are reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)