2011Da23422 Compensation (as referred to)

1. B

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

1. Korea;

2. Stock company F;

Seoul High Court Decision 2007Na16979 Decided February 15, 2011

April 10, 2014

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal on whether the Deceased’s tobacco manufactured by the Defendants was smoked

The lower court determined that, in light of the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the deceased smoked tobacco manufactured by the Defendants for most of the period from 1963 to the time when the deceased was diagnosed pulmonary cancer, and ultimately, it could not specify what amount of tobacco the deceased could have been avoided for a certain period of time.

In light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

2. As to the grounds of appeal on the causal relationship between the deceased’s lung cancer and smoking

A. The term “epidemiology” means the study aimed at identifying the correlation between the outbreak, distribution, and extinction of diseases as a group phenomenon in a statistical manner and finding ways to prevent and reduce the occurrence of diseases by analyzing the impact on the occurrence, distribution, and extinction of diseases as a group phenomenon. The epidemiology examines and ascertains the cause of a disease as a group realization, and does not establish the cause of a disease as a group. Therefore, even if an epidemiological correlation exists between a certain risk factor and a certain disease, it does not confirm the cause of a disease as a group. However, if the occurrence rate of a group exposed to a risk factor is higher than that of another group not exposed to the risk factor, it can be inferred how much the possibility of the occurrence of a disease as a group by an individual belonging to that group would have occurred as a risk factor depending on the degree of higher ratio.

On the other hand, ‘specific disease' that occurs by a specific sick person and clearly responding to the cause and result clearly occurs, and so-called ‘non-specific disease' means a disease that occurs in combination with congenital factors such as genetic and physical characteristics, such as drinking, smoking, age, eating habits, vocational and environmental factors. Even if the epidemiological correlation exists between a specific risk factor and the non-specific disease, so long as there is a possibility that the individual or group exposed to the risk factor is also exposed to the other risk factor, the epidemiological correlation merely refers to the occurrence or increase of the disease if exposed to the risk factor, and it does not lead to the conclusion that the cause of the disease is the risk factor.

Therefore, even if epidemiological correlation between a specific risk factor and a non-specific disease is acknowledged, it cannot be deemed that the causal relationship between an individual and the non-specific disease is proved to be probable. In such a case, as a result of an epidemiological investigation conducted by comparing the exposed group with other general groups not exposed, the non-specific disease in the exposed group must prove that the rate of non-specific disease in the exposed group exceeds considerably the rate of the non-specific disease in the exposed group, and that the individual’s time and degree of exposure, timing of occurrence, health conditions before being exposed to the risk factor, living habits, changes in the conditions of the disease, family history, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da7536, Jul. 12, 2013). The probability that the non-specific disease was caused by the exposed group should be proved to have been caused by the non-specific person (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da7536, Jul. 12, 2013).

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, although epidemic causation between smoking and lung cancer is recognized, it is difficult to find special relationship with smoking because the first class cancer of the lung cancer accounts for higher frequency among Smokingers, young age group, and women's lung cancer, and there is also a view that other factors such as environmental pollutants, such as smoking pollutants, rather than smoking, it is known that the first class cancer of the first class cancer of the first class cancer is more related to smoking, and there is a assertion that there is a cause for the virus, and that there is a research report that there is a cause for the virus, and that there is a damage caused by pulmonary resuscitation due to tuberculosis or other causes.

According to the above facts, even if the epidemiological causal relationship is acknowledged between the development of the rayam and the non-specific disease, and the outbreak of the non-specific franchisam, it is difficult to view that the probability of proving the causal relationship between the two is proven on the ground that an individual smokes and that he/she was infected with the above non-specific disease.

Meanwhile, according to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the deceased was found to have been living as the head of an agency or an engineer for more than 30 years from July 31, 199 after the first boarding of the deceased, and until July 31, 199. The engine room of a diesel ship has used asbestos as an dactative substance, and the occurrence of pulmonary cancer increases if asbestos is exposed for a long time. The deceased with smoking in 20 grams was diagnosed on August 199. The organization type of the deceased was highly likely to be the dactpool cell cancer among the dactum cancer. In the case of a worker of an engine room, the death rate by the respiratory system is high, and this is explained to have been caused by exposure to asbestos, smoke, etc. rather than smoking.

In light of these facts, it is difficult to view that it is highly probable that the marral cancer caused to the deceased was caused by smoking.

In this regard, the court below’s determination that the causal relationship between the deceased’s smoking and the outbreak of lung cancer is not recognized is acceptable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on causal relationship, thereby failing

3. As to the remaining grounds of appeal, all of the remaining grounds of appeal are premised on the premise that the deceased smoked tobacco manufactured by the Defendants, and that the pulmonary cancer was caused and died. As seen earlier, as long as it is difficult to recognize such premise, the remaining grounds of appeal by the Plaintiffs cannot affect the conclusion of the lower court that dismissed the Plaintiffs’ claim. Therefore, it is without merit without further review.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Justices Shin Young-chul

Justices Lee Sang-hoon

Justices Kim Gin-young