Whether a worker can be presumed to be dead due to his/her death in the course of performing his/her duties where it is unclear (negative)

In order to be recognized as death in the course of performing duties under Article 82 of the Labor Standards Act and Article 3 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the death in question must be 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. Therefore, even if the death in question was done during the performance of duties but the cause of death is not clear, it cannot be presumed that the death occurred from

Article 82 of the Labor Standards Act, Article 3 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

Supreme Court Decision 88Nu10947 Decided August 19, 1986 (Gong1986, 1202) (Gong1986, 1202)

Kim Shin-deok

The head of the Ministry of Labor

Seoul High Court Decision 87Gu1390 delivered on March 24, 1988

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 judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged that the non-party Kim Young-hee, the plaintiff's son, was the official of the non-party East Plast Co., Ltd, and was used for the withdrawal from the company factory at around 12:00 on May 4, 1987, and died during the dispatch to the hospital, and that there was no dispute between the parties, and that there was no dispute between the above deceased's private person, and that a worker's death occurred in the course of performing his duties, unless there was suicide or any other counter-proof, it is reasonable to presume that the death was caused by his work, unless there was a clear reason that the death was caused in the course of performing his duties. However, even if the above deceased's death was in the course of performing his duties, the court below accepted the plaintiff's claim for non-payment of the plaintiff's survivors' benefits and funeral expenses.

However, in order to be recognized as a death in the course of performing duties under Article 82 of the Labor Standards Act and Article 3 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the death in question must be deemed as a death in the course of performing duties as well as a death in the course of performing duties, and there should be a proximate causal relationship between the business and the accident. In this case, the causal relationship between the business and the accident of the worker should be proved by the assertion. Thus, even though the worker's death in question was done during the performance of duties, if the worker's death was not certain, it cannot be presumed as a death in the course of performing duties (see Supreme Court Decision 83Meu1670 delivered on August 19, 1986; Supreme Court Decision 88Nu10947 delivered on July 25, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 88Nu10947 delivered on July 25, 198). Thus, the argument pointing this out is justified.

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 Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice) Lee Chang-soo Kim Jong-won