The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

Since occupational accidents under Article 5 subparagraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refer to the injury, disease, physical disability, or death caused by the worker's occupational accident while performing his/her duties, there is a causal relationship between the occupational accident and the disaster. If there is a causal relationship between the occupational accident and the occupational accident in the course of treating the occupational accident, if there is a new causal relationship between the occupational accident and the occupational accident caused by the side effects of medicine or treatment method.

Here, the causal relationship does not necessarily have to be clearly proved by medical or natural science, and even if there is a proximate causal relationship in consideration of all the circumstances, there is proof, but the burden of proof is still in the position of assertion.

[See Supreme Court Decision 2006Du10580, 2006Du10597, Oct. 26, 2006, etc.] Examining these legal principles and records, the lower court’s conclusion that the death of the deceased cannot be deemed as having a proximate causal relation with brain color, which is an occupational disease, is acceptable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on proximate causal relation with an occupational accident, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion

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.