[1] The degree of proof of proximate causal relation between the occupational accident and the occupational accident, and whether the occupational accident constitutes an occupational accident under Article 4(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act in a case where the occupational accident occurred due to the side effects of drugs, etc. with a long period of time to treat the injury or disease caused by the occupational accident (affirmative)

[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below which found the proximate causal relation between the side effects of taking drugs for a long time and the death in order to treat the physical mental disorder which is a injury or disease caused by occupational accidents

[1] The proximate causal relation between the affairs for recognizing occupational accidents and the accidents under Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act does not necessarily have to be clearly proved in medical or natural science, and in light of all the circumstances, there is proof even if there is a proximate causal relation between the affairs and the accident. Thus, even if there is no direct evidence as to the cause of the disaster, if it is possible to presume the occupational identity based on the trend that can be reasonably explained under the rules of experience based on indirect facts, etc., it shall be deemed that it is occupational accident. Thus, even if death is caused by the side effects such as drugs, etc. for treating the occupational accident, it shall be deemed that it is occupational accident, and the above legal principles shall apply when considering the existence of proximate causal relation between the side effects of the drugs, etc.

[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that there is a fatal side effect such as blood pressure and heart or above, the cause of the death of the deceased was diagnosed as the heart for death and the consultation with the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service, and the cause of the death of the deceased was judged as blood pressure, but it was found that the cause of the death of the deceased, which is one of the above side effects, was at the heart level, but is at the heart level, and it was not unrelated to the heart funeral expenses, and the deceased was deceased due to the age of 46, who was relatively young, and there was no record that there was no evidence to support the fact that the deceased was treated for any other disease in addition to the first wound due to the first accident and the subsequent legacy, on the ground that there was no possibility that the deceased died due to the side effects of the drugs that he had recovered for a long time.

[1] Article 4 subparag. 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Articles 187 and 261 of the Civil Procedure Act, Articles 8(2) and 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 4 subparag. 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Articles 187 and 261 of the Civil Procedure Act, Articles 8(2) and 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [Burden]

[1] Supreme Court Decision 88Nu10947 delivered on July 25, 1989 (Gong1989, 1308), Supreme Court Decision 91Nu3727 delivered on November 8, 1991 (Gong1992, 131) Supreme Court Decision 91Nu102 delivered on May 12, 1992 (Gong1992, 2026), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu9408 delivered on October 12, 1993 (Gong1993, 3101), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu2565 delivered on June 28, 1994 (Gong194, 2135), Supreme Court Decision 97Nu94979 delivered on September 26, 1994 (Gong194, 2135), Supreme Court Decision 97Nu94979 delivered on September 26, 1994 (Gong29497Du9497594975 delivered on September 1997949494).

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff (Attorney Kim So-young, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 98Nu14855 delivered on September 2, 1999

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the non-party 1, who was the deceased's husband's death after the above 7th anniversary of the death of the deceased, was found to have caused the death of the deceased's 190 square meters, and the injury was caused by the death of the deceased's 1st day after the death of the deceased's 1st day after 7th day after the death of the deceased, and the death of the deceased's 1st day after 7th day after the death of the 1st day after the death of the deceased, and the death of the deceased's 1st day after the death of the 1st day after the death of the deceased's 1st day after the death of the 1st day after the death of the deceased, and the death of the deceased's 1st day after the death of the 2nd day after the death of the deceased's 1st day after the death of the deceased, and the death of the 2nd day after the death of the deceased's 1st day after the death.

2. The proximate causal relation between the duties for recognizing occupational accidents and the accidents under Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act does not necessarily have to be clearly proved in medical or natural science, and in light of all circumstances, there is proof even if there is a proximate causal relation between the duties and the accident when considering all the circumstances. Thus, if it is presumed that there is a proximate causal relation between the duties and the accident, even if there is no direct evidence as to the cause of the disaster, if it is possible to presume the occupational personality based on a trend that can be reasonably explained based on the empirical rules based on indirect facts, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du10103, Jan. 26, 199). In addition, it shall be deemed that the occupational accident is an occupational accident even in the case of death due to the side effects such as drugs, etc. to treat the occupational accident, and the above legal principles should be applied in accordance with the above legal principles.

3. However, the judgment of the court below is also recognized, for the purpose of treating the toxic mental disorder, which is a wound, caused by occupational accident, the deceased was continuously taking up approximately seven years immediately before the death, such as pyrain or pedago, and the above medicine has a fatal side effect, such as the stove, stove, two through vain, vain, etc., where the deceased was normal stoved with the deceased (Evidence A No. 8), and the death cause of the deceased was diagnosed as the heart with the death’s heart, and the Defendant’s advisory opinion also determined the deceased’s private death as the heart cost, and thus, it is highly probable that the direct death of the deceased (Evidence B No. 3) was likely to have been the heart for a long time, and in light of the above side effect, one of the above causes of death was at least the blood pressure, but it was no longer likely that the death was at the age of the deceased’s first heart and no other material was found to have been found to have been at the heart.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the deceased cannot be deemed to have died due to the side effects of the above drugs on the ground that the possibility and degree of the death of the deceased through a doctor or other expert who treated the deceased, without further detailed examination of the possibility of the death of the deceased due to the side effects of the above drugs, and the cause of the death of the deceased is not clear. However, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to proximate causal relation in determining whether an occupational accident occurred, or in the misapprehension of facts against the rules of evidence, etc.

4. 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 Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)