[1] The method of determining the causal relationship between the occupational disease and the disease that caused the death, and the degree of proof as to the causal relationship under Article 5 subparag. 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

[2] In a case where the primary accident that occurred to an employee constitutes an occupational accident having proximate causal relation with his/her duties, whether the secondary accident that occurred thereafter can be deemed an occupational accident, and the method of determining whether the secondary accident constitutes an occupational accident

[3] In a case where Party A, who was engaged in day and night shift work while packaging the PVC pipe, finished his day-time work and finished his day-time work, was diagnosed as having a serious pulmonal difficulty due to the heart scarcity in the night, and was diagnosed as having been transmitted to the hospital (the first accident), and was diagnosed as having a scarcity (the first accident) for 11 days at the home after receiving a medical examination of a scarcity, and was found to have been sent to the hospital, and was sent back to the hospital (the second accident), the case holding that the judgment below was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles in finding it difficult to acknowledge a proximate causal relationship between the deceased’s work and the disease caused by death

[1] In order to recognize “the death due to an occupational reason” as “the death” under Article 5 subparag. 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, there must be a causal relationship between the occupational and the disease causing death. However, even though the main cause of the disease was not directly related to the performance of the duties, if the occupational route or stress overlaps with the main cause of the disease and at least caused the disease, and thus, the disease was caused or aggravated, the causal relationship should be deemed to exist between them. The causal relationship does not necessarily have to be proved clearly by medical and natural science, but rather, if it is presumed that there is a proximate causal relationship between the duties and the disease in light of all the circumstances, and it includes cases where there is proof even if the basic disease or existing disease which can normally work is caused by excessive work and which is rapidly aggravated at a natural speed. The existence of a causal relationship between the duties and the death should be determined based on the health and physical conditions of the relevant employee, not

[2] If the first accident constitutes an occupational accident which has a proximate causal relation with the business, the second accident that occurred thereafter is highly likely to naturally deteriorate, and if so, there is sufficient room to view the second accident as an occupational accident due to the business. Therefore, when determining whether the second accident constitutes an occupational accident, it should focus on whether the first accident constitutes an occupational accident, and whether the deceased was in an objective state at the time of the first accident.

[3] In a case where Party A, who was engaged in day-time shift work while packing and discharging the PVC pipe (10 to 30km), was diagnosed as having a serious difficulty in pulmonary pulmonary dnasium due to late night work at the night (the primary accident), and was sent to the hospital after medical treatment at home for 11 days after night work, and was found to have been used in the toilet in the dormitory before the night work, and died to the hospital (the second accident), the case holding that the judgment of the court below was hard to recognize that there was an objective proximate causal relation between the deceased’s death and the first accident after late night work at the time of the first accident, and that there was no sufficient causal relation between the second and the second accident after the second accident, and that there was no sufficient causal relation between the death and the second accident after late night work at the time of the first accident, and there was considerable reason to view that there was no objective causal relation between the first accident and the second accident after the second accident.

[1] Articles 5 subparag. 1 and 37(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act / [2] Articles 5 subparag. 1 and 37(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act / [3] Articles 5 subparag. 1 and 37(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2018Du32125 Decided May 15, 2018 / [2] Supreme Court Decision 95Nu14282 Decided January 26, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 810)

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 2 others

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 2019Nu37471 decided November 26, 2019

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. In order to recognize “the death caused by an occupational reason” under Article 5 subparag. 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, there must be a causal relationship between the occupational and the disease caused by death. However, even if the main cause of the disease was not directly related to the performance of the duties, if the occupational route or stress overlaps with the main cause of the disease and at least causes of the disease, and caused or aggravated the disease, the causal relationship should be deemed to exist between them. The causal relationship does not necessarily have to be proved clearly by medical and natural science, but if it is presumed that there is a proximate causal relationship between the duties and the disease in light of all the circumstances, it shall be deemed that there is proof, and it shall be included in cases where there is proof even if the basic disease or existing disease caused by which normal work can be caused by the over-concentration of the duties, etc. and which is rapidly aggravated at a natural progress level. The existence of a causal relationship with the duties and death should be determined based on the health and physical conditions of the relevant employee, not on an average person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2018Du3218

2. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following facts.

A. From March 8, 2010 to October 3, 2013, from January 27, 2014 to February 22, 2018, the deceased Nonparty (hereinafter “the deceased Nonparty”) who is the Plaintiff’s spouse, was in the process of packing PVC pipeline (10 to 30km) in the red industry, a factory and in the open-site, on a 30-minute basis, while performing his/her duties.

B. The Deceased continued to work on a weekly basis without approximately two weeks of holidays and continued to work on a two-day night basis without about two weeks of rest for a two-day period, and repeated work on a two-day basis after the rest for a two-day period. The Deceased’s weekly working hours were 7:30 minutes to 19:0 hours (including 11 hours, 30 minutes of meals, and rest hours) and the night working hours were 19:0 hours to 30:0 p.m. (including 12 hours, meals, and rest hours).

C. Around 20:40 on February 8, 2018, the Deceased was sent back to the ○○○○○ Hospital (hereinafter “the first accident”) by the report of a charged worker, considering that he or she had a serious pulmonal difficulty with the heart stroke in the rest in the night (hereinafter “the Deceased”). The Deceased was recommended to be hospitalized on the ground that he or she is suspected of strophism at the time, but did not comply with the request for hospitalization due to personal reasons. The date’s maximum temperature was 3.4C, the lowest temperature was 1.2C, and 4.6C, the average temperature was 3.4C, the average temperature was 3.4C.

D. From February 9, 2018 to February 19, 2018, the Deceased was given medical care for 11 days, including permanent leave from February 20, 2018, and began night service from February 17, 2018 to February 17, 2018. On February 22, 2018, the Deceased was discovered as being used in the toilets in the dormitory immediately before engaging in night service at night (i.e., on February 18:38, 2018). The Deceased was treated as cardiopulmonary resuscitation by 119 first aid units in a state without food, respiratory, or beering, and sent back to △△△△△△△△△△△ Hospital, but failed to grow in the heart and died at around 19:45 (hereinafter “second disaster”).

E. The death diagnosis report of the deceased is written by the private person as “unexplosion,” and the body examination report is written as a direct death, the body examination report contains cardiopulmonary death suspension as an intermediary, the acute heart disorder as an intermediary, and the heart disease as a prior death (such as herthical disease, etc.), and the autopsy was not carried out.

F. Around November 2009, the Deceased received each medical treatment by using an original high blood pressure and a detailed stimulious stimulsion. Since then, he/she received a medical treatment due to the following: (a) an unidentified in detail; (b) an unidentified pulmonal difficulty; (c) an unidentified in detail; (d) pulmonal expansion; and (e) a stimulsion.

3. Examining these circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, there is a high room to acknowledge a proximate causal relationship between the deceased’s work and the disease caused by death. The reasons are as follows.

A. Although the autopsy was not carried out after the second accident, in full view of the medical history of the deceased and the diagnosis of the doctor who treated the deceased, the first and the second disasters can be sufficiently predicted that both of the deceased’s physical disease and the second disasters have deteriorated.

B. If the first accident constitutes an occupational accident which has a proximate causal relation with the business, the second accident that occurred thereafter is highly likely to cause the second accident naturally aggravated, and if so, there is sufficient room to deem the second accident as an occupational accident due to the business (see Supreme Court Decision 95Nu14282, Jan. 26, 1996). Therefore, when determining whether the second accident constitutes an occupational accident, the focus should be placed on whether the first accident constitutes an occupational accident and whether the deceased was in an objective and excessive state at the time of the first accident.

C. At the time of the occurrence of the first accident, the Deceased seems to have been in a chronic physical or mental state by performing the night shift work repeated at intervals of about 12 hours every 12 weeks with the age of 62 years and 7 months every 12 weeks. It is widely known that the main night shift work may have a negative impact on the outbreak and aggravation of the disease by causing confusion with the skin and stress due to the outbreak of diseases, lack of water surface, life rhythrh and rhythrhy, by itself, arising from the confusion of the night shift work (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 202Du8145, Jan. 10, 2003; 2006Du4912, Apr. 12, 2007).

In addition, even if the defendant's calculation method is based on the deceased's work hours, the average work hours per week during 12 weeks prior to the occurrence of the first accident is about 64 hours, and the average work hours per week during 4 weeks prior to the occurrence are about 66 hours.

Considering that the Deceased’s performance of a long-term long-time shift and a long-term night shift, even based on the matters necessary to determine whether to recognize the occupational disease of cerebrovascular diseases or heart diseases and cardioscular diseases (Notice of Ministry of Employment and Labor No. 2017-117, Dec. 29, 2017), it can be deemed that there is a strong correlation between the work and the primary accident.

D. The first disaster date also belongs to the relatively construous part of the Republic of Korea’s winter weather. The exposure above the winter season is known to be a dangerous person who rapidly aggravated a cardio-cerebrovascular disease and enhances the risk of acute emulsion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2018Du32125, May 15, 2018; 2017Du35097, Jun. 19, 2018).

E. Although there was an existing disease that can be seen as a dangerous person of acute funeral services, such as primary high blood pressure, detailed stimulssis, and aquatic heart failure, considering that the deceased worked for the first time prior to the first accident, it is difficult to readily conclude that such existing disease was on the basis of natural progress alone to the extent that it would cause acute heart funeral services.

F. Ultimately, the Deceased’s physical and mental division continued to work for a long time and work for a long time, and the exposure to outdoor work on the first day of the disaster, which led to the rapid aggravation of the existing disease above the natural progress speed, is highly likely to be seen as having caused the first accident. Furthermore, even after the first accident, the Deceased appears to have started night work again while failing to properly provide medical care due to economic circumstances, etc. after the first accident, but the second accident occurred.

4. Nevertheless, the lower court determined that it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relationship between the disease caused by the deceased’s work and death on the premise that the first accident constitutes an occupational accident, without emphasizing the fact that the second accident constitutes an occupational accident, the deceased was not in an objective fruit at the time of the second accident by taking a sufficient rest time for two weeks after the first accident occurred. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the proximate causal relationship between the occupational accident and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

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 Ahn Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)