[1] The scope of the burden of proof and degree of proof of causation between official duties and disease, which is the requirement for the payment of compensation for survivors of public officials who died on duty under Articles 3(1)2 and 61(1) of the Public Officials Pension Act / Whether there exists a proximate causal relationship between official duties and death (affirmative with qualification), and matters to be considered to recognize a proximate causal relationship between official duties and death (affirmative with qualification)

[2] In a case where Party A, who was placed in the police station guard and traffic survey team and worked for three times, was released from a hospital due to a serious decline in body, and was provided with a prescription for the diagnosis of neutronic clothes, depression, and treatment of uneasiness; Party B’s suicide while Party B claimed compensation for survivors, but the Public Official Pension Service refused payment on the ground that it cannot be recognized as a disaster caused by official duty, the case holding that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, even if there is sufficient room to acknowledge a proximate causal relation between Party A’s work and death, and thus, erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine

[1] Under Articles 3 (1) 2-2 and 61 (1) of the Public Officials Pension Act, “public disease” which serves as the requirement for the payment of compensation to bereaved family members of the public official who died on duty who died on duty, refers to the disease caused on official duty during the performance of official duties. As such, there should be causation between the occurrence of the disease and the occurrence of the disease, and the causal relationship should be proved by the assertion of such causation. However, the causal relationship does not necessarily have to be proved clearly in medical and natural science, and where proximate causal relationship is recognized from normative perspective, there should be proof. In a case where a public official died on a suicide, the disease caused or aggravated due to the occurrence of the disease on official duty, or overwork or stress in the main cause of the disease, and if it can be presumed that such disease was caused on a suicide under the circumstance of lack of normal recognition or choice ability, mental suppression ability, or considerable decrease in the ability to make a reasonable judgment, there is a proximate causal relation between official duties and death. In addition, for the recognition of such proximate causal relation should be comprehensively taken into account the degree of the disease, general symptoms, possibility, and mental situation of suicide.

[2] In a case where Gap, who was placed in the police station guard and traffic survey team and worked for three times, was released from a hospital due to heavy physical congestion and pressure on severe occupational stress and return to work, and was provided with a prescription for diagnosis of neutronic personality, depression, and uneasiness disorder treatment; Gap's suicide during sick and claimed compensation for survivors Eul, but the Public Official Pension Service rejected payment on the ground that it cannot be recognized as an accident caused by official duty, the case held that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the ground that Gap was placed in the above department and received considerable mental and physical pain due to his duties such as excessive working hours and death, on-site investigation including excessive traffic accidents requiring excessive work hours and overtime, and on-site investigation including traffic accident involving the perpetrator of traffic accident and the victim's response, and caused considerable mental and physical pain due to pressure on severe occupational stress and return to work, and caused considerable causal pain, and thus, it could not be found that there was sufficient causal causal relation between Gap's work and suicide.

[1] Articles 3 (1) 2-2 and 61 (1) of the Public Officials Pension Act / [2] Articles 3 (1) 2-2 and 61 (1) of the Public Officials Pension Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2011Du32898 Decided June 11, 2015 (Gong2015Ha, 983)

Plaintiff (Attorney Im Young-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Government Employees Pension Service

Seoul High Court Decision 2017Nu41155 decided July 13, 2017

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 3(1)2-2 and Article 61(1) of the Public Officials Pension Act provides that “a disease in official duty, which serves as the requirement for the payment of compensation for survivors of public officials who died on duty, to bereaved family members of the public officials who died on duty pursuant to Article 3(1)2-2 and Article 61(1) of the same Act, refers to a disease that occurs on official duty during the performance of official duty. As such, there is a causal relationship between the occurrence of the disease and the occurrence of the disease, and the causal relationship must be proved by the assertion of such causal relationship. However, if a proximate causal relationship is acknowledged from a normative point of view, the causal relationship should be deemed to exist. In the event a public official died on the part of a public official due to a suicide, the disease is caused or aggravated due to the occurrence of the disease in official duty, or due to the lack of normal recognition or choice ability, mental suppression ability, or considerable decline, and thus, there is a proximate causal relationship between official duty and death. In addition, for the recognition of such proximate causal relationship, the person’s degree, physical and mental condition of suicide, etc.

2. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court reveals the following facts.

A. On September 1, 2006, the deceased non-party, who is the husband of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the deceased”), was appointed as a police officer on September 1, 2006, and began work at the Gyeonggi Provincial Police Agency ○○ Police Station.

B. On July 20, 2015, the Deceased placed at the ○○ Police Station guard and traffic survey team (hereinafter “instant department”) to take charge of traffic accident-related investigation, securing human and material evidence, preparation of relevant documents, and transfer to the prosecution.

C. In the instant department, the Deceased worked as three bridges on duty (09:00 to 15:00), on duty (09:00 to 09:00 on the following day), Nos. 09:00), and on duty. From July 2015 to October 2015, the Deceased’s employees assigned to the instant department, etc. used sick leave, etc. to use sick leave, etc., during which the number of working days during that period is less than ordinary hours, the excessive working hours during that period is 7 hours every July 19, August 12, September 31, September 30, and October 37. Meanwhile, the instant department maintains a four intersection system from September 2016.

D. During the period from July 22, 2015 to October 6, 2015, the Deceased frequently sent to the Plaintiff a message to the effect that “one is a large number of days, and is very difficult.”

E. On December 2007, the Deceased was treated as a disguised salt, spawnitis, etc., and thereafter, was treated as a disguised disease. However, from October 2015 to January 2016, the Deceased was treated more than 30 times due to the level of functional fire extinguishing, a disguised infection and spawnitis in detail, and a spawnosis.

F. On January 31, 2016, at the time of receiving treatment at △△△△ Hospital, the Deceased stated that the body was reduced by 12 kilograms and the amount of meals was reduced during the last three months. The doctor in charge determined that there was no special check as a result of the examination that there was no possibility that the clothes pains, food, medicine, etc. generated to the Deceased may be caused by multiple causes, such as stress, food, medicine, etc. In addition, the doctor in charge determined that the death of the Deceased’s heavy body is too serious only by the symptoms of a mere disguised disorder, and that there was a serious depression and apprehension disorder, and requested a psychiatrist to a psychiatrist.

G. On February 2, 2016, the Deceased stated to the effect that “The head of the Gu was aware of her her frisome, who was moving to the department of this case for 24 hours before the six months prior to the move of the department of this case, and the pain was started for 4 months prior to the start of her work.” The doctor in charge stated to the effect that “The her frigate was her frisome pain, who was complained of stress arising from the moving of the department of this case and the performance of the work.” The doctor in charge, however, determined that the her frimatic pain was her frisome sexual pain, and prescribed her anti-pathic agents, anti-pathic agents, exemption from the water.”

H. From November 16, 2015, the Deceased was granted childcare leave for six months, and the period was issued as of January 29, 2016, and was on February 1, 2016 during which he/she applied for a reinstatement order; however, he/she applied for an additional sick leave from the same day until February 14, 2016. After the Deceased died after he/she was administered in the apartment house where he/she was located at am on February 7, 2016. The Deceased’s remaining son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’

I. According to the diagnosis document issued by △△△△ Hospital, the deceased’s final diagnosis name was “sulphy, abnormal decrease in body,” and the deceased was faced with extreme decline due to work-related stress, and the deceased was determined as a depression and uneasiness, and thus, the deceased recommended the medical treatment of rest and recuperation along with the drug-related law, mental therapy, and medical treatment.

(j) Meanwhile, there is no record of treatment from 2007 to 2015 due to depression, etc., and there is no particular family problem or economic problem.

3. We examine these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier.

A. The Deceased appears to have suffered considerable mental and physical pain due to his duties, such as the assignment to the department of this case and the work requiring excessive work hours and excessive work hours, traffic accident investigation including death accidents, and traffic accident investigation including the perpetrator of the traffic accident and the victim.

B. In such occupational stress, the deceased’s body weight was 12 km or reduced in a short period from October 2015 to January 2016, when he received 30 medical treatment near 12 kg or 12kh, and accordingly, the deceased’s body’s body condition was determined as “neinal personality pain”. As such, it cannot be deemed that the deceased’s body condition was attributable to simple spathn or physical spathnosis. In addition, the deceased’s body condition was raised by the pain and spathnosis due to the work entrusted by the department of this case. Considering that the deceased’s body condition did not have any power to receive treatment due to depression, etc. in the past, etc., the deceased’s body condition aggravated or aggravated due to excessive work and severe stress related thereto, and that the deceased’s body condition aggravated or aggravated caused the deceased’s body condition.

C. Furthermore, in light of the background leading up to the Deceased’s suicide, there is no other special circumstance that the Deceased, who had previously been suffering from depression, could not be found to have selected suicide. If so, the Deceased’s pressure on serious occupational stress and return to work, and neutic pains, which led to the aggravation of depression due to his/her symptoms, and may be presumed to have led to suicide by taking into account the situation where normal perception, ability to choose action, and mental suppression power are considerably deteriorated and where reasonable judgment could not be expected, there is sufficient room to acknowledge a proximate causal relationship between the Deceased’s work and the death. Personal vulnerability, such as the characteristics of the Deceased, may have partially influenced the Deceased’s resolution on suicide, and it does not change on the ground that there is a possibility that a proximate causal relationship between the Deceased’s work and the death.

4. Nevertheless, the lower court did not closely examine the cause and degree of occupational stress that the deceased received, the background leading up to the occurrence and aggravation of the depression of the deceased, the mental condition of the deceased at the time of suicide, etc., and concluded that it is difficult for the deceased to be deemed that the deceased was subject to occupational stress to the degree that he was significantly able to overcome or overcome, or that the depression was caused and aggravated, thereby denying the proximate causal relation between the deceased’s death and his official duties. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on proximate causal relation between the death and the official duty in a disaster involving official duties, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberation, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The

5. 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 Cho Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)