[1] In a case where the main cause of a disease is not directly related to the duty but the overwork or stress overlaps with the main cause of the disease and causes or worsens the disease, whether it constitutes "occupational accident" under Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (affirmative), and the degree of proof necessary to recognize the proximate causal relation between the duty and the disease, and the standard for determining whether the causal relation exists

[2] The case holding that an occupational accident constitutes an occupational accident on the ground that a worker infected with hepatitis B is dead due to the aggravation of physical or mental stress due to continuous work, even though he/she has no connection with his/her duties, even if he/she was infected with hepatitis B, due to the aggravation of physical or mental stress due to his/her excessive work and the aggravation of hepatitis B above the naturally occurring speed

[1] The term "occupational accident" under Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 6100 of Dec. 31, 1999) refers to an occupational disease caused by the worker's occupational injury while performing his/her duties. Thus, there is a causal relationship between the occupational and the disease caused by death. However, even if the main cause of the disease is not directly related to the performance of his/her duties, if at least the occupational age or stress overlaps with the main cause of the disease and has caused or aggravated the disease, it shall be deemed that there exists a causal relationship between the occupational disease. The causal relationship does not necessarily have to be proved clearly by medical and natural science, and in consideration of all the circumstances, it shall be deemed that there is a causal relationship between the occupational disease and the existing disease, which can normally be caused by the occupational excess of the occupational duty, and it shall be determined based on the health and physical condition of the worker in question, not on an average person of the occupational relationship.

[2] The case holding that an occupational accident constitutes an occupational accident on the ground that the worker infected with hepatitis B is dead due to the aggravation of physical or mental stress due to continuous work, even though it is not related to work, if he/she has sustained physical or mental stress and died of hepatitis B due to the aggravation of natural speed above the speed of proceeding

[1] Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 6100 of Dec. 31, 1999), Articles 187 and 261 of the Civil Procedure Act, Articles 8 (2) and 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 6100 of Dec. 31, 1999), Articles 187 and 261 of the Civil Procedure Act, Articles 8 (2) and 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [liability for admission]

[1] Supreme Court Decision 98Du12642 delivered on December 8, 1998 (Gong199Sang, 144), Supreme Court Decision 97Nu16459 delivered on April 23, 199 (Gong199Sang, 1061), Supreme Court Decision 99Du11424 delivered on May 12, 200 (Gong200Ha, 1431), Supreme Court Decision 200Du3627 delivered on April 13, 2001 (Gong200Du9922 delivered on April 13, 200)

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorney Park Jong-il, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Daejeon High Court Decision 9Nu1005 delivered on May 12, 2000

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

The term "occupational accident" under Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 6100 of Dec. 31, 1999) refers to an occupational accident caused by the worker's occupational injury during his/her performance of duty. Thus, there is a causal relationship between the occupational and the disease caused by death. However, if the main cause of the disease is not directly related to the performance of his/her duties, and at least the occupational age or stress overlaps with the main cause of the disease and caused the disease to cause or aggravated the disease, the causal relationship should be deemed to exist. The causal relationship does not necessarily have to be proved clearly by medical and natural science, and if it is presumed that there is a proximate causal relationship between the occupational and the disease, considering all the circumstances, it shall also be deemed that there is a proof even if the basic disease or existing disease which can normally work at ordinary level has aggravated rapidly beyond the natural progress, and the existence or absence of the causal relationship between the occupational and the death should be determined based on the health and physical condition of the worker concerned, not on average.

The judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below acknowledged that serious physical or mental stress may further weaken the inter-patitis B's function. The deceased non-party, who purchased a new computer graphic type after 1994, alone with graphic work without raising personnel, and around 1995, he was engaged in excessive work compared to the deceased's health condition, such as selling a new computer graphic type to operate it properly. On October 13, 1997, after receiving a diagnosis of propat, after retirement as of January 15, 1998, he was found to have died on July 1 of the same year, and there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as it continues to exist in the ground of appeal by deeming that the deceased's death was related to his occupational stress or physical stress after being infected with the deceased's disease. In light of the records, the judgment of the court of first instance, as alleged in the ground of appeal, is justified and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as it continues to be infected with B's mental stress or disease.

2. On the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that since the worker's right to receive medical care itself is inherited to the heir of the worker, it is legitimate to file the lawsuit of this case against the disposition of this case, since the plaintiffs are inherited to the heir of the deceased, since the plaintiff's right to receive medical care itself is bound by work and can not receive medical care on behalf of others, but the entitlement to medical care benefits due to medical care has the nature of monetary claims directly or indirectly paid to the worker concerned after going through certain procedures, such as approval of medical care by the Korea Workers' Compensation & Welfare Corporation, and the worker has already received medical care due to occupational accidents and satisfies the requirements for payment of medical care benefits, and the worker concerned died during medical care or after the medical care is under way, the application for approval of medical care before the worker's birth was made, and the right to receive medical care benefits has been transferred to the heir of the worker concerned regardless of whether the worker died without any medical care or not. In light of the relevant provisions of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 6

Therefore, the appeal is 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 Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)