[1] The method and degree of proof of causation between official duties and disease, which is the requirement for compensation for bereaved families under the Public Officials Pension Act

[2] The case holding that a proximate causal relation between official duties and diseases cannot be inferred solely on the ground that a fire fighter who performed fire extinguishing duties of Daegu subway was exposed to poisonous gases, etc. for a long time, without considering the characteristics of the disease in question, the materials on the smoking habits and the progress of the death of the deceased, in a case where he died after being diagnosed by the fourth and spine of the waste cancer and the verterate immediately after the fire fighter died

[1] Article 61 (1) of the Public Officials Pension Act / [2] Article 61 (1) of the Public Officials Pension Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Nu6103 delivered on September 6, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 3029) Supreme Court Decision 2004Du5324 Delivered on August 20, 2004

Plaintiff

Public Official Pension Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 2005Nu25389 decided July 7, 2006

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

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence adopted, the lower court determined that the non-party (the deceased’s husband of January 7, 1957) was appointed as a fire-fighting officer on October 7, 1981, and worked in Daegu, etc. on August 4, 200 when promoting the fire-fighting of the deceased on the ground that the fire-fighting of the deceased was considerably high, and that the non-party (the deceased’s husband of January 7, 1957) was exposed to the death of the deceased for a long time, and that the fire-fighting of the deceased was caused by the fire-fighting of the deceased for a prolonged period of time, and that the fire-fighting of the deceased was caused by the death of the deceased on August 17, 200 and the fire-fighting of the deceased on the ground that the fire-fighting of the deceased on the ground that the fire-fighting of the deceased on the condition that the fire-fighting unit was actually exposed to the death of the deceased on the 1st of Daegu, 200 square meters.

2. However, it is difficult to accept the fact-finding and judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

Article 61 (1) of the Public Officials Pension Act provides that a causal relationship between a public official's disease and a disease should be established during the performance of his/her official duties, and the causal relationship should be proved by his/her assertion. The method and degree of proof does not necessarily have to be clearly proved by direct evidence. It is sufficient if it is proved to the extent that proximate causal relationship between a public official's disease and a disease can be inferred by indirect facts, such as the health condition at the time of employment, existence of an existing disease, nature of his/her work and the working environment, and the transfer of another public official's disease in the same workplace (see Supreme Court Decisions 96Nu6103, Sept. 6, 1996; 2004Du5324, Aug. 20, 2004).

First of all, based on the facts acknowledged by the court below, considering the fact that tobacco known by the deceased as the main cause of the lung cancer has been avoided at least 20 years a day, and at the time of diagnosis of the dead’s lung cancer, spine was already in the condition of at least 4 in the time of diagnosis of the dead’s lung cancer, there is a considerable doubt that the deceased’s lung cancer occurred or aggravated due to official duties, such as the dispatch of the Daegu subway fire site as alleged by the Plaintiff. Therefore, the court below should have deliberated more on the correlation between the two through a medical specialist’s opinion (the outcome of fact inquiry or the result of entrustment of appraisal) based on the data on the progress of the deceased’s lung cancer.

In addition, for the deceased's pulmonary cancer to be recognized as a disease due to official duties, it should be found that the deceased's pulmonary cancer occurred or aggravated due to toxic gases, etc. inhaled in the process of fire extinguishment and rescue activities (hereinafter "poisonous gas, etc."). The court below should have determined that the deceased's health condition at the time of employment, existence of existing diseases, and proximate causal relation between the deceased's activities and the deceased's pulmonary causal relation with the deceased's fire extinguishment and other similar occupational conditions should be determined based on the following reasons: (a) whether the deceased inhales toxic gases, etc. at the scene of the fire; (b) whether the deceased used the fire at the scene of the fire; (c) whether the deceased was the safety equipment used at the scene of the fire; and (d) whether the fire officer's performance had been outside of fire extinguishment activities; and (d) whether the deceased died at the early stage due to inhale of toxic gases, etc.; and (d) whether there was a proximate causal relation with the deceased's fire extinguishment and other similar occupational accidents.

3. 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 Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)