logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2016.01.28 2014두47327
유족보상금부지급결정처분취소
Text

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

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The term “public disease” which serves as the requirement for the payment of bereaved family’s compensation under Article 61(1) of the Public Officials Pension Act refers to a disease caused by the official duty during the performance of the official duty. As such, there should be causation between the occurrence of the official duty and the disease, and such causation must be attested by the party asserting it

However, the causal relationship is not necessarily required to be proved clearly in medical or natural science, and if there is a proximate causal relationship from the normative point of view, there is a proof.

In a case where a public official dies due to a suicide, when a disease occurs in the line of duty, or an excessive stress in the line of duty overlaps with the main cause of the disease, resulting in the outbreak or aggravation of the disease, and when it can be inferred that such disease has resulted in suicide in a situation where the normal perception ability, the ability to choose an act, or the ability to restrain mentally or significantly drops, and where it is impossible to expect reasonable judgment, there is a proximate causal relation between the public official and the death

In addition, in order to recognize such proximate causal relationship, comprehensive consideration should be given to the degree of illness or aftermath of the person who committed the suicide, general symptoms of the disease, period of medical care, possibility of recovery, age, physical and psychological circumstances, surrounding circumstances where the person committed the suicide was committed, circumstances leading to the suicide, etc.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du32898, Jun. 11, 2015). 2. Reviewing the reasoning of the first instance judgment as cited by the lower court and the record reveals the following facts. A.

The Plaintiff’s husband B has been working as middle school teachers since 1991, and on March 1, 2012, he was transferred to D middle school and was in charge of study classes (20 hours per week), and became in charge of the student life human rights department for the first time.

As a result, the Deceased as the head of student life human rights department.

arrow