2013Du21328 Revocation of Disposition of Non-approval for Medical Care

The person who received the lawsuit from the deceased A

B

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Busan High Court (Chowon) Decision 2012Nu224 decided September 5, 2013

May 28, 2015

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The term “occupational accident” under Article 37(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to the injury, disease, physical disability, or death of an employee who was caused by his/her duties during the performance of his/her duties. As such, the causal relationship between his/her duties and the disaster ought to be proved. However, in cases where the medical and natural science is not clearly proven, and proximate causal relation is acknowledged from a normative point of view, there should be proof. Therefore, in cases where a worker dies due to a suicide, the disease is caused or aggravated due to the occupational or occupational disorder or stress overlaps with the main cause of the disease, and it can be presumed that such disease has resulted in suicide in a situation that lacks normal recognition ability, ability to choose action, mental suppression ability, or considerable decrease, and that there is a proximate causal relation between his/her duties and the death. In order to recognize such proximate causal relation, comprehensive consideration should be given to the degree of suicide or symptoms after the suicide, the general period of medical treatment, recovery possibility, age, physical and psychological situation of the worker, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2913Do194.).

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

A. On August 30, 1988, A (hereinafter referred to as “the Plaintiff’s husband”) entered D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “D Co., Ltd.”) and took charge of the activities such as the assembly of straight-types, exchange and power generation, fuel pumps assembly for 18 years from November 2006. Since December 2006, D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “CVT”) was in charge of the d Co., Ltd.’s business from around 18 May 2009, and took charge of the d Co., Ltd. from around December 2009.

B. On May 2009, the non-party company changed the work form from the former 2nd class service to the 3th class service, and the deceased who was recognized as having excellent skills and capabilities as having been the career of 20 years, was asked to leave the 2nd class of Article B from G who was in charge of the 2nd class as the promotion of the non-party company, but was asked to leave the 20-year unit with the 3th class service. However, the non-party company refused two times, but did not perform the 2nd class service for one month after being requested again.

C. The supervisor of the non-party company is in charge of the quality inspection of products in the manufacturing process of the company belonging to the non-party company, quality inspection of the products in the manufacturing process of the company, replacement work in the occurrence of a vacancy, measures to support or respond to the work operator in the event of the occurrence of an error in the equipment, and the work of exchanging the construction site when the construction site is damaged or replaced. However, the deceased, in a somewhat resistant nature, he/she is in charge of the overall management, guidance, and support work at the relevant work site. However, as he/she intends not to do so to give any other person a refusal to do so, he/she is in the nature of the products produced by the non-party company, and 7 or 8 of the nine trillion members were at the age above the deceased, and five of them were ordered by another department, but the deceased did not follow the instructions of the deceased, and when the products were affected by stress caused by the work of the deceased, the deceased was transferred to the non-party company, and it was transferred to the non-party company from 209.

D. While performing his duties, the Deceased asked F, etc., who was in charge of the separation of C from his workplace in the same workplace as He or F, who was in charge of his duties, to change his workplace, to F, etc., who was in charge of his workplace, with the knowledge of other parts or machinery than his workplace, where the problem occurs, he is not responsible if he was not known of the other parts or machinery of his workplace, and he was unable to take responsibility, and his opinion about the method of work with his assistant, which makes it difficult for G to carry out his duties, and 20 days after he was in charge of his duties, and if he was in place with stress, he also requested G to change to the effect that he will not be able to carry out his duties, and if he was unable to carry out his duties, he made a statement to the effect that he would not be able to carry out his duties unless he was able to do so, and that he would not have any bigly changed in his ability to do so. Meanwhile, H and F made a statement to the effect that he was unable to carry out his duties.

E. On July 24, 2009, the Deceased was absent from the company, and went to his house while coming to one Council, and the police officer called to the deceased’s family by presenting abnormal horses and actions, such as being mixed, from the inside of the immigration house located in the Changwon-si at the latest night, at the time of the death of the deceased. On July 26, 2009, the Deceased was sent to the deceased’s family. On August 9, 2011, the Deceased was found to have been discovered to a family in a state where he was unable to receive consciousness after having attempted suicide in a mixed house after having taken care of the deceased’s family at the house after going to death after having attempted suicide at the house, and having died at the hospital around August 9, 201, while being hospitalized due to brain damage in a low oxygen.

F. On June 15, 2009, after changing the work environment, the deceased was sent to the symptoms of one week due to stress, and the deceased diagnosed the deceased with influence, major depression, and conducted pharmacologic treatment and support mental treatment. From July 1, 2009, the deceased was at the time of causing a serious burden on the environmental change, and since July 1, 2009, the medical specialist E expressed the opinion that he was given the directions for pharmacologic treatment and hospital treatment by showing the symptoms of mental disorder, such as the damage net, relation net, de facto judgment, and shock, which lack the ability to control himself.

In addition, the Korean medicine doctor I, who treated the deceased, also expressed that it is necessary to treat the deceased for a considerable period of time from July 4, 2009 to July 25, 2009, such as indeption caused by occupational stress, indeption, indeption, indeption, anti-humanism, and depression.

G. The director of the Yangsan National University Hospital confirmed that he/she received treatment with depression through the mental and medical records of the deceased, etc., and confirmed occupational stress through the statements of the deceased and his/her family members, mental and medical treatment records, and expressed his/her opinion that there is no other factor that may cause the injury of the deceased in relation to his/her duties, as well as his/her occupational factors, there is no other factor that may cause the injury of the deceased.

Meanwhile, the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service's Changwon's advisory opinion is deemed to have shown symptoms, such as anxiety, portrait, scarcity, and scarcity disorder, but the occurrence of these symptoms is personal vulnerability, characteristics, and adaptability, so it is judged that there is no causal relationship between disaster and injury and injury. In addition, the Korea Workers' Association has presented that the first instance court's entrustment of evaluation of medical records was based on the deceased's medical records and the statement of related persons, and it was presumed that the deceased had shown apprehension, apprehension, interest, and enjoyion, physical decrease, desire, concentration decrease, and criminal liability. From July 1, 2009, it was significant that the deceased had no mental disorder to be judged as being accompanied by the symptoms of "serious disorder", and that there was no significant mental stress or mental stress in the view of the deceased's mental average ability to be determined as the deceased's ability to overcome the normal state of suicide.

H. The Deceased was relatively healthy, and even with his fee, and there was no evidence to acknowledge that he had received treatment for mental illness before he was on the part of his duties.

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

After a long period of time after joining the non-party company, the deceased, who has been engaged only in the production and processing of machinery parts, has been in charge of the overall management, guidance, and support of the workplace at the end of the death of the non-party company twice due to changes in the work form of the non-party company. As a deceased of a nature that does not refuse to do so to any other person, the deceased, in addition to the parts he had previously been in charge, had no ability to be responsible if any problem arises due to the lack of knowledge of other parts and related machinery. It seems that serious stress has been accumulated, such as that the majority of the trillion won transferred to another department or experienced difficulties in the direction and direction of the work method due to the age higher than the deceased.

As a result, the deceased seems to have been suffering from the depression from the separation, showing a rapid depression, and complained of his own mental pain to the company's fellows. From June 15, 2009, the deceased was diagnosed with stress arising from the change of work environment, and was treated with depression and depression. On July 1, 2009 when he left the separation, the deceased was diagnosed with stress arising from stress arising from the change of work environment, and was treated with depression, etc. until the day before the deceased's suicide was attempted even after he left the separation.

In addition, there is no evidence to deem that the deceased had no record of being treated due to the symptoms of psychosis, such as depression, and there is no evidence to prove that the deceased had reached the above symptoms due to any other factors than his duties.

In light of these circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Deceased suffers from extreme occupational stress due to changes in the work environment and difficulties in performing his/her duties, and that rapid depression has been caused.

In addition, from the day when the deceased, who had worked normally without any special problem and had the function and ability to retain, was in charge of his work, he showed a serious depression to the extent that the above mental distress resulted in a significant change from his predecessor. In fact, he was suffering from depression and was treated. In particular, even around the day when he was in charge of his work, the depression was aggravated to the extent that the mental disorder accompanied by the mental disorder and the hospital treatment is needed. Therefore, due to the above extreme occupational stress, it should be deemed that the emotional distress suffered by the deceased and the eutic depression caused by it is very serious.

In addition, in light of the following circumstances: (a) stress caused by work to the deceased’s severe pressure or apprehensions; (b) the deceased’s physical and mental situation surrounding the deceased, and the surrounding circumstances surrounding the deceased; and (c) the deceased attempted suicide because they did not run one month after the suspension of his/her active duty; and (d) the deceased attempted suicide immediately before the end of his/her attempt; (b) the deceased attempted suicide on a holiday; and (c) the deceased attempted suicide on his/her own on a holiday; and (d) the deceased did not have any other reason to make the motive or opportunity to choose suicide; and (d) due to extreme occupational stress and mental distress, there is sufficient room to deem that, at the time of his/her attempt to commit suicide, the depression caused by the death to the deceased, resulting in attempted suicide by taking into account the situation to the extent that it is impossible to expect normal recognition, ability to choose action, and other reasonable decisions that have significantly deteriorated mental suppression.

Therefore, proximate causal relation can be acknowledged between the deceased’s work and death, and even if so,

The personal vulnerability, such as the character of the deceased, may have partly influenced the resolution of suicide, or the time when the deceased attempted suicide does not change on the ground that the time when the deceased attempted suicide was only conducted.

4. Nevertheless, notwithstanding the above circumstances, the lower court determined that there are other circumstances where it is difficult to recognize the possibility of suicide due to the occurrence and aggravation of depression of the deceased, as well as other circumstances where it is difficult to recognize the relevance between the deceased’s work and the possibility of suicide due to their aggravation, and that the deceased’s specific speech and behavior before and after the attempt to commit suicide was not closely examined, and it is difficult to view that occupational stress exposed to the deceased is a serious stress to the extent that the occupational stress exposed to the deceased is objectively and objectively likely to cause or deepen depression, and that the deceased’s major cause of suffering from depression is personal in mind, and thus, it cannot be concluded that the deceased’s occupational stress and the causal link between the deceased’s death and work was denied.

Therefore, in so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on causation between work and death in occupational accidents, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

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 Kim Jae-young

Justices Lee In-bok

Justices Kim In-bok, Counsel for the defendant

Justices Go Young-young