[2] In a case where an employee who moveds and worked for a number of construction work sites subject to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act suffers from a disease during work, whether the disease constitutes an occupational accident should include all the work experienced under multiple employers and be considered as a reference for determination (affirmative)

[2] In a case where an employee who moved to and worked for a number of construction work sites suffered from a disease during the work, if both the construction work sites are subject to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the determination of whether the disease is an occupational accident should include all the work experience of the worker under the multiple employers and be based on the basis of the determination.

1. “Occupational accident” under Article 5 subparag. 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to an employee’s injury, disease, disability, or death resulting from his/her occupational duties during the performance of his/her duties, and thus, there is a causal relationship between his/her occupational and occupational disaster in order to fall thereunder. In addition, such causal relationship is not necessarily required to be proved clearly by medical and natural science, but if it is presumed that there is a proximate causal relationship between his/her occupational and occupational disease in light of all circumstances, it shall be proved if there is a reasonable causal relationship between his/her occupational and occupational disease. In addition, the causal relationship shall be proved even when the basic disease or existing disease that can normally work at ordinary level gets worse rapidly above the natural speed due to excessive performance of his/her duties (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du164, Mar.

Meanwhile, if an employee who moved to and worked for a number of construction work sites suffered from a disease during the work, both construction work sites should be subject to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and if the disease is subject to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, all of the construction work sites should include all the work experience of multiple employers and be subject to the determination (see Supreme Court Decisions 91Nu10466, May 12, 1992; 2009Du5794, Jan. 28, 2010, etc.).

2. The court below, citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, acknowledged facts as stated in its holding, and found that the time when the intervenor worked at the construction site of this case is less than about four months, and there are many contents of treatment on the part of the disease of this case from the beginning of 2007 to the affected part of the affected part of the disease of this case, and the time when the injury of this case was diagnosed is about two months after the completion of work at the construction site of this case, or the possibility of the injury of this case cannot be ruled out, on the ground that it is difficult to conclude that the plaintiff's work at the construction site of this case affected the outbreak and aggravation of the injury of this case, and there is no proximate causal relation between the intervenor's work and the injury of this case.

3. However, it is difficult to accept such a determination by the lower court for the following reasons.

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the Intervenor stated that he had consistently worked at various construction sites for about 27 years including the instant construction site from the time of the instant application for medical care to the lower court. From July 2004, the Intervenor stated that his statement is supported by the statement of work specifications for daily employment insurance.

Examining these circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, whether the instant wound constitutes occupational accidents ought to be determined including not only the work performed at the construction site of this case but also the work performed at least at the time of the previous construction work site confirmed to be subject to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

Therefore, the lower court should have deliberated more on the period of the Intervenor’s service in the U.S., place of business and specific duties, the symptoms, causes, and treatment of the shoulder-related disease that the Intervenor was treated from the beginning of 2007, and then closely examined the extent of the burden on the left shoulder when the Intervenor served in the U.S., and at the same time, examined whether the instant injury or disease occurred or the injury or disease was rapidly aggravated at a natural progress level due to all the duties performed by the Intervenor over a long time. In addition, the lower court should have examined the relationship between the shoulder-related disease and the injury or disease in the instant case being treated from the beginning of 2007 by the Intervenor.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the instant injury and disease did not constitute occupational accidents on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the causal relationship between the Intervenor’s work and the injury and disease of this case solely based on the Intervenor’s work at the construction site of this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the proximate causal relation of occupational accidents, by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations,

4. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, 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 (Presiding Justice)