[1] Whether a worker can be presumed to have died due to his/her duties where the worker died while performing his/her duties but the cause of death is unclear (negative)

[2] The case holding that it does not constitute an occupational accident under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, in case where there is no evidence that a worker was locked after night duty and died, but the cause of death is unclear and that the worker was overwork due to excessive work

[1] For the death to be recognized due to an occupational reason as stipulated in Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the death in question must be the death during the performance of duties as well as the death during the performance of duties, and there should be a proximate causal relation between the duties and the accident. In this case, the causal relation between the duties and the accident of the worker should be proved by the claimant. Thus, even if the death in question occurred during the performance of duties, if the private person is not certain, it shall not be presumed that

[2] The case holding that the above worker's death does not constitute an occupational accident under Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, on the ground that it is difficult to view that the above worker's death was caused by excessive work even if the non-party worker died after returning home while working at the company heat processing team, but his private life is unclear, his duty is not physically difficult, and that the above worker sustained excessive work or mental stress due to excessive work at the time.

[1] Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act / [2] Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 83Nu1670 delivered on August 19, 1986 (Gong1986, 1202) Supreme Court Decision 88Nu5037 delivered on October 23, 1990 (Gong1990, 2425) Supreme Court Decision 96Nu1726 delivered on February 25, 1997; Supreme Court Decision 97Nu1984 delivered on February 27, 198

Plaintiff

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 97Gu4014 delivered on January 8, 1998

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that: (a) Nonparty 1 (date of birth omitted) was on September 1, 1986, who was the Plaintiff’s husband, and was on duty in the company heat treatment team; (b) he was on night duty from November 29, 1995 to 08:00 on the following day; (c) he was found to have been frightened after her death; (d) there was no obvious cause of death due to her husband’s death; (e) there was no obvious causal relation between the deceased’s death and her husband’s death; (e) there was no apparent cause of death due to her husband’s death; (e) there was no apparent causal relation between her husband’s death and her husband’s death at night; (e) there was no apparent cause of death between her husband and her husband’s death at night; and (e) there was no other reason for her death during which her daily work was performed by the Administrator of the Agency, and there was no other reason for her death.

For the recognition of death due to an occupational reason as stipulated in Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the death in question must be the death during the performance of duties as well as the death during the performance of duties, and there should be a proximate causal relation between the business and the accident. In this case, the causal relation between the worker's business and the accident should be proved by the claimant. Thus, even if the worker's death was during the performance of duties, if the cause of death is unclear, it cannot be presumed to be caused by the death in the course of performing duties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Nu1726, Feb. 25, 1997; 97Nu19984, Feb. 27, 1998).

However, according to the records, the deceased's private life is indicated in the body autopsy report prepared by the doctor non-party 2 on the body of the doctor non-party 4 (Evidence 4-1 of the above evidence), and the doctor non-party 3 of the National Institute of Scientific Investigation (Evidence 4-2 of the above evidence) may consider cases where the deceased's private life suggest the possibility of internal death by alteration of heart function that is not clearly discovered or postmortemly discovered, and it is stated that the possibility of death by the Administrator's post facto visa should be considered in light of age or age. Meanwhile, according to the fact inquiry by the court below on the National Institute of Scientific Investigation on the deceased, it is difficult to ascertain whether the deceased's private life had been induced by the Administrator of the National Institute of Scientific Investigation, and it is difficult to conclude that the deceased's private life was the Visa 1-year visa after the death of the deceased without physical stress at the time of the death of the deceased. However, it is difficult to conclude that the deceased's physical stress and the form of duty determined by the Administrator of the National Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

Nevertheless, the court below recognized the cause of death of the deceased as the head of the year visa post office, and recognized the death of the deceased as an occupational accident after the head of the year visa post office, which caused the death of the deceased. Therefore, the court below erred in the misapprehension of facts against the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to causation of occupational accident. The grounds for discussion are as follows.

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 Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)