[2] The case holding that in a case where it is presumed that a remote school teacher died after his/her work in a remote school and an elementary school teacher died after being on the ground of a wooden bridge due to an official residence in the school in the damp drinking condition after his/her work, it is recognized as a disaster caused by official duty, but there is gross negligence, which is

[2] The case holding that in a case where a remote school teacher in a remote school and an elementary school teacher is presumed to have died on the spot because he was on duty or was on duty after the completion of his day duty and was on the part of an official residence in the school where he was on duty and was on the part of a wooden bridge which was on the part of his own at the entrance of the official residence and was on the part of the official residence, it shall be deemed to have died on the part of official duty, on the ground that he was on duty at the time of his death on the part of the deceased, on the ground that he was on duty at the time of his death on the part of the deceased, and the drinking was on the part of his own regardless of his day duty, and the deceased was on the part of his death without disregarding the doctor's warning and thus, the deceased was on the part of his death.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the non-party 1, the deceased's husband, was unable to suffer from stress on the deceased's her husband's death at the time of 1 March 1, 193 and that there was a high probability that the deceased might suffer from stress on the deceased's death at the time of 193, and that the deceased's death was caused by stress on the deceased's death at the time of 1st century, and that it was difficult to recognize that the deceased's death was caused by stress on the deceased's death at the time of 1st century, and that there was a high probability that the deceased's death was caused by stress on the deceased's death at the time of 1st century, and that there was a high probability that the deceased's death was caused by stress on the deceased's death at the time of 1st, 2nd, 3th, 4th, 11th, and 2nd, 6th, 2nd, and 3 years.

2. However, the term "Death caused by a disease or injury related to the performance of official duties, which is a requirement for the payment of compensation for survivors of public officials under Article 61 (1) of the Public Officials Pension Act, refers to a disaster caused in connection with the performance of official duties, and such disaster includes a disaster caused by the performance of official duties or the performance of duties regardless of the place or working hours, or a disaster caused by the incomplete facilities of the company which require occupancy in the performance of official duties or by the usual route and method. [See Article 20 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Officials Pension Act, Article 2 of the Public Officials Pension Act, the criteria for recognition of a disaster caused by official duties, which is subject to deliberation by the Public Officials Pension Benefit Deliberation Committee under Article 20 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Officials Pension Act, and Article 93Da16161, Oct. 8, 1993].

According to the records, eight faculty members work on a public holiday and Sundays, and they work on a daily basis between 09:00 and 17:00 on the day. At night, the deceased did not work on a night-time basis. The deceased, together with his family members living at the school, was self-employed in a public room located behind the school. The duradle way leading from the above public room to the public room is a narrow boom, and the wooden bridge installed at the entrance of the public room is a narrow boom, and the dives of the deceased were installed at the school, and the dives of the deceased were rarely dives, and the dives of the deceased were rarely dives and dives of the deceased, and the dives and dives of the deceased's personal gals and dives of the deceased's personal gals, and the above gals and gals of the deceased's personal gals from the school.

However, the deceased appears to have been under the influence of alcohol at the time of considering the fact that there was a gap between the drinking and the end of the drinking and the end of the drinking at the time when he was found to drink almost every day while drinking almost every day, and such drinking was done customarily regardless of his work without disregarding the doctor's warning, and thereby, the deceased was crashed or killed (Supreme Court Decision 96Nu716 delivered on April 12, 1996, etc.). Accordingly, the disaster of this case constitutes a serious negligence of the deceased (Supreme Court Decision 96Nu716 delivered on April 12, 1996, etc.). Ultimately, the accident of this case is a concurrent occurrence of the cause attributable to the deceased, and such cause shall be a cause for reduction of the deceased's compensation in accordance with the provisions of Article 62 (3) 1 of the Public Officials Pension Act, and Article 53 of the former Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14858 delivered on December 29, 1995).

Therefore, the decision of the court below that there is no proximate causal relation between the deceased's death and his official duties is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to occupational accidents as stipulated in Article 61 of the Public Officials Pension Act.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)