[유족보상금지급청구부결처분취소][공1991.1.1.(887),108]
The case holding that the "occupational accident" under Article 3 (1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act is applicable to the case where a bus driver was engaged in driving service requiring a tension in a state of sudden difficulty and died of the heart expenses.
The term "occupational accident" as stipulated in Article 3 (1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to an accident such as injury, disease, physical disability, death, etc. caused by the worker's occupational failure in the course of performing his/her duties, and there is a causal relation between his/her duties and accident. Thus, the disease or death caused or aggravated due to excess in the course of performing his/her duties shall be applicable thereto. Thus, if a bus driver worked continuously for 16 hours and 30 minutes a day off and died at the heart of the bus while driving the bus again after having worked again for 16 hours a day off and 30 minutes a day off, it can be said that there is a cause for causing the heart expenses, while engaging in the bus driving duty requiring physical and mental tension in a state of difficulty due to the sudden cumulative excess. Thus, the judgment of the court below that the death of the above deceased constitutes death due to the occupational reason as stipulated in the above provision of the Act is justified.
Article 3(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act
Supreme Court Decision 89Nu1186 delivered on October 24, 1989 (Gong1989, 1805) 89Nu690 delivered on February 13, 1990 (Gong190, 671)
Park Jong-gu, Attorneys Han Jin-jin et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant
the Head of the Office of Government Regional Labor
Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu12034 delivered on April 19, 1990
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.
The term "occupational accident" under Article 3 (1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to an accident, such as injury, disease, physical disability, death, etc. caused by an employee's occupational failure in the course of performing his/her duties, and there is a causal relation between his/her duties and accident. Thus, the disease or death caused by an occupational excess or aggravated due to the excess in the course of performing his/her duties shall be included herein (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Nu186, Oct. 24, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 89Nu690, Feb. 13, 1990).
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the non-party 1, who was the husband of the plaintiff, worked as a bus driver of the non-party sub-party 1, who was employed by the non-party 1 as the plaintiff's husband, worked at the above company's office 06:0 p.m. and worked for 16:30 p.m. for 16:0 p.m. and worked for 2 to 30 minutes a.m. and worked for 1 day off. The above deceased's work for 3 consecutive days from February 19, 198 to 21.m. of the same month, and the above deceased's work for 1:3 p.m. of the above 1:0 p.m. after his work for 3:0 p.m., the non-party 23:0 p.m. of the above 1:0 p.m., which caused the death of the deceased's body while working for about 40:0 p.m. of the above body.
In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation, misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the mistake of reasons, omission of judgment, or occupational accident, as pointed out in the arguments.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)