(a) Proof of causal relations between official duties and diseases in connection with occupational diseases;

(b) The case reversing the judgment of the court below which held that the disposition of non-approval for medical care was justifiable on the ground that the employees of the sewage treatment station were affected by the cross-section infection, but the cause pathogen and infection were not revealed, and the same employees could not be viewed as diseases caused by the unforeseen working environment due to the absence of precedents;

A. The public official’s disease under Article 35(1) of the Public Officials Pension Act refers to a disease that occurred in the course of performing official duties. Thus, there is a causal relationship between the official duty and the disease. The causal relationship must be proved by the assertion of such causal relationship, but the causal relationship does not necessarily require medical, natural and scientific proof. In light of all the circumstances, such as health conditions at the time of employment as public officials, whether there is a cause of the outbreak at the work site, whether there is a cause of the outbreak, working hours at the work site where there is a cause of the outbreak, and whether there are any circumstances to deem that the disease was caused by reasons other than those of official duties.

B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below which held that the disposition of non-approval for medical care was justifiable on the ground that the employees of the sewage treatment station were affected by cross-section infection, but the cause pathogen and infection were not revealed, and the same employees could not be viewed as diseases caused by the unexpected working environment due to the absence of precedents.

Article 35 (1) of the Public Officials Pension Act, Article 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 91Nu10022 delivered on May 12, 1992 (Gong1992, 2026) 93Nu9408 delivered on October 12, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 3101) 94Nu2565 delivered on June 28, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 2135)

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Public Official Pension Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu22397 delivered on April 22, 1994

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

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that since July 1, 1980, the plaintiff was working in the machinery maintenance room of the Defendant-affiliated sewage treatment station as a local machine source. The above sewage treatment office is an influent working environment, such as fluorous malodor. In particular, during the regular maintenance work conducted between April and June each year, serious malodor was found in the process of replacing damaged machinery and excreta or repairing and assembling decomposition machinery. Even if the plaintiff did not have any anything else in the physical examination conducted every two years after the employment, the court below found that there was no possibility that the disease was infected by the disease caused by the disease caused by the disease caused by the disease caused by the disease occurred during the above regular maintenance work period, and that there was no other evidence that the disease caused by the disease caused by the disease caused by the disease caused by the exposure to the disease caused by the disease caused by exposure to the disease caused by the disease, and that there was no other evidence that the disease caused by exposure to the disease caused by exposure to the disease and no other specific disease caused by exposure to the disease.

2. The public official's disease under Article 35 (1) of the Public Officials Pension Act refers to a disease that occurs in the course of performing the official duty, which requires a causal relationship between the official duty and the disease. The causal relationship must be proved by the assertion of such causal relationship, but the causal relationship does not necessarily necessarily require a clear medical, natural and scientific proof, and considering all circumstances such as health conditions at the time of employment as public officials, whether there is a cause of the outbreak at the work site, working hours at the work site where there is a cause of the outbreak, and whether there are other circumstances to consider that the disease was caused by reasons not for the official duty such as the working environment at the work site where there is a cause of the outbreak, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu1022 delivered on May 12, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 93Nu9408 delivered on October 12, 1993).

As recognized by the court below, the plaintiff suffered from the above cross-section infection while working in the mechanical maintenance room of the above sewage treatment plant for about nine years. The above disease can be infected by either vir, spath, spawn, spawn, and parasitic disease directly with skin or with spathic disease, or with pulmonary equipment through air. The above mechanical maintenance room of the plaintiff's working time, especially during the regular maintenance period between April and June of each year, causes heavy malodor, spawnor, or foul waste to spathn or spathn during the above regular maintenance period. The plaintiff's disease also occurred during the above regular inspection period. In this case, it is reasonable to deem that the disease of the plaintiff was caused not less than anything was discovered in a physical examination conducted every two years until the above outbreak, without any proximate causal relation between the plaintiff's above mechanical maintenance room's work and the above mechanical maintenance room, and therefore, it is reasonable to deem the plaintiff's above mechanical maintenance room's health condition and the present mechanical maintenance work environment.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that there is no evidence that there is a proximate causal relation between the plaintiff's disease of this case and the official duty is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to causation of a disease in the line of duty under Article 35 (1) of the Public Officials Pension Act, or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and it is clear that such illegality affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, there is a reason

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 Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)