1. The term “occupational accident” under Article 37(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to the injury, disease, physical disability, or death of an employee who was caused by his/her duties during the performance of his/her duties. As such, the causal relationship between his/her duties and the disaster ought to be proved. However, in cases where the causal relationship is not necessarily clearly proven in medical or natural science, and where proximate causal relationship is acknowledged from normative perspective, it should be deemed that there is proof. Therefore, in cases where a worker dies due to suicide, the disease is caused or aggravated due to the occurrence of the disease, occupational or stress overlaps with the main cause of the disease, and it can be presumed that such disease is caused suicide in such a situation as to make it impossible to expect reasonable judgment due to the lack of normal perception or ability to choose action, mental suppression ability, or considerable decrease, there is a proximate causal relationship between his/her duties and death. In order to recognize such proximate causal relationship, comprehensive consideration should be given to the degree of suicide or symptoms, the general period of medical treatment, recovery, age, physical or psychological condition 1939.

2. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment, the reasoning of the first instance judgment as cited by the lower court, and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court reveals the following facts.

A. On March 3, 1997, Nonparty 1 (hereinafter “the deceased”), who is the husband of the Plaintiff, joined the South Sea Chemical Co., Ltd. which manufactures chemical fertilizers, and worked as a person in charge of shift in the production sector through the composite fertilizer team, etc. by March 23, 2010. During the above period, the deceased performed simple repetitive tasks related to the production of products in the production sector, but did not perform administrative work such as computer work, and worked for 8 hours a day while performing a shift work in the 4th shift method, and the separate extension work was almost rare.

B. On March 24, 2010, the Deceased, as an intermediate manager, was assigned to the management department corresponding to the highest vice-ranking class of the relevant team, performed the overall adjustment for the operation of the department, including, from that time, consultation on the work of the production management team, production planning, production planning, production planning, and production cost management according to the production plan, and budget formulation, as a result of changes in the assignment to the position of the position corresponding to the highest vice-ranking class of the relevant team.

In particular, the management officer should properly combine various ingredients values of fertilizers into fertilizers and instruct a shifter to verify them, and if errors are found, he/she conducts the work so that normal fertilizers can be produced by reeding the values. Nonparty 2, who was a manager before the Deceased, computerized and managed all the materials necessary for production, such as raw materials according to kinds of fertilizers and the ratio of chemical medicine, and daily materials on fertilizers produced.

C. The basic work of the aforementioned computer program is to input the numerical value of the mixing ratio of fertilizers, and the deceased could only deal with the program to the extent of seeking the total sum and average as a result of chemical engineering and origin, and thus, did not properly deal with the above computer program. Accordingly, it led to a sense of pressure that the production of fertilizers could cause significant damage to the company by erroneously inputting the numerical value of the mixing ratio of fertilizers and producing fertilizers that could not be sold.

D. After being assigned with the management department, the Deceased was on the night duty to adapt to the new work, and worked on the day off except for the Children’s Day.

E. The Deceased was relatively healthy and did not receive treatment for mental illness before his death. In addition, the Deceased was a fluorial and social fluorial fluorial fluor, so the Deceased was well-beingd with his fee-raising employees, and was in a strong sense of responsibility.

However, it was difficult for the deceased to repeat the words such as “I would know about it,” “I would not know about it,” “I would like to have a thickness of the company and team leader,” “I would like to die at work,” and “I would like to die at work,” and “I want to die at work.”

F. On May 12, 2010, and May 14, 2010, the Deceased requested Nonparty 2, the head of the Complex Fertilizer Team, who was the head of the group of multiple fertilizers, to change his position on two occasions, and submitted a resignation twice, but all Nonparty 2 was returned by Nonparty 2, etc. In the process, Nonparty 2 worked for six months once on the Deceased, and was able to have his superior position assigned to his superior officer if he is anticipated to adapt to his position. At the same time, Nonparty 2 said that Nonparty 2 would work for a certain period of six months, and that he would be able to have his superior position assigned to his superior officer so that he can move to another position

G. The Plaintiff, her husband, was unable to properly locked from the change of position after the change of the position, and the Plaintiff alone takes a bath at the time of suicide, “I want to die,” or “I want to die,” and submitted a confirmation document stating that there was several times of behavior, such as a person with mental illness, such as her boom or drinking, etc., such as her husband, etc.

H. On May 21, 2010 as of the day before the death day, the Deceased worked at around 10:00 and worked until 21:00, which is a legal holiday. After his retirement, all of his family members were in the mixed house and died after having opened a note that the bank passbook, wallets, etc. was not prepared on his book at around 05:30 on the day following the day when he was in the mixed house.

3. We examine these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier.

As the Deceased, who was engaged in simple and repetitive production operations for a long time after his/her entry, newly takes charge of the following tasks: (a) the Deceased, who was in a strong nature and has a strong sense of responsibility, was faced with heavy pressure that he/she may cause significant damage to the company depending on his/her actual conditions; (b) the Deceased, who was in charge of management, was in charge of his/her duties, and was in charge of his/her duties and worked daily at work except for 59 days, including holidays, to adapt to new duties from the day before his/her death; and (c) the Deceased, who was in charge of performing his/her duties, seems to have been suffering from severe stress due to his/her mental pain from his/her family or its members after he/she changed his/her assignment from the date of his/her change. In light of such circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the Deceased, as a usual and external nature, has never suffered from depression, and there is no evidence to deem that he/she had caused serious symptoms due to any reason other than his/her duties without stress.

In addition, the deceased, who had worked normally and had been promoting the above mental pain, submitted two times or more of resignation and sought to die to his family members or company members. Therefore, due to the above extreme occupational stress, it can be deemed that the psychological distress caused by the deceased is very serious. Although it may have been intended to take care of the deceased, it may have been intended to do so, but it may not go beyond the severe occupational stress and serious mental distress as the deceased submitted to his superior two times or more, and the above depression might have become worse.

In addition to various circumstances on the deceased’s physical and mental situation surrounding the deceased, and the degree of aggravation and aggravation of depression caused by stress on duty to the deceased, as well as various circumstances on the deceased’s physical and mental condition, surrounding the deceased’s surrounding condition, and the degree of aggravation and aggravation of depression. In fact, the second retired member was returned and the deceased appeared to commit an abnormal act at the time of suicide, and the deceased appeared to have been on the day of suicide. On the day immediately before the death on a legal holiday, he/she was living together with his/her own house, and he/she was living in the new wall on the day following the day when he/she was in his/her house, and there are no other reasons that can be a motive or an opportunity to choose suicide to the deceased. Considering the above, it is sufficient that the deceased’s normal perception, choice of action, mental suppression ability to the extent that it is impossible to expect a reasonable judgment due to severe decrease in his/her ability to commit suicide, and thus, there is no possibility of proximate causal relation between his/her work and death.

4. Nevertheless, notwithstanding the above circumstances, the court below denied the causal relationship between the deceased's death and work, on the ground that there are other circumstances where it is difficult to recognize the possibility of suicide due to depression and aggravation thereof, and that the deceased's specific words and motives, etc. before and after suicide, such as the deceased's specific words and behaviors before and after suicide, are not closely examined, and that the deceased's occupational stress may not be deemed to have caused suicide due to the deceased's bad stress on duty, or that the deceased's normal behavior selection ability was significantly deteriorated.

Therefore, in so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on causation between work and death in occupational accidents, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

5. Therefore, 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 So-young (Presiding Justice)