[1] Standard for determining whether or not to pay medical care benefits under the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

[2] In a case where a worker who has engaged in oil pipeline maintenance and repair work finds that the breast part of the chest part was faced with the oil pipe while he was faced with the shock part of the earth, and that the diagnosis of acute scarfing, etc. and the alarm signboard escape certificate was found, the case holding that there is sufficient grounds to regard that the existing disease was rapidly aggravated due to the shock caused by the above accident, on the ground that the worker's acute scarfing and the alarm signboard escape certificate has become worse rapidly beyond the natural progress

[1] Article 40 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8373 of Apr. 11, 2007) / [2] Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8373 of Apr. 11, 2007) (see current Article 5 subparagraph 1 of the current Act)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 99Du10360 delivered on December 10, 1999 (Gong2000Sang, 210) Supreme Court Decision 99Du11646 delivered on March 10, 200, Supreme Court Decision 2000Du1607 Delivered on June 9, 200

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff (Attorney Park Woo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Gwangju High Court Decision 2009Nu255 decided April 17, 2009

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Gwangju High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The term "occupational accident" under the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8373, Apr. 11, 2007; hereinafter "the Act") means an accident caused by the worker's performance of his/her duties. As such, there should be a causal relationship between the occupational accident and the disaster. However, even if the accident is an existing disease not directly related to his/her duties, if it becomes worse or its symptoms occur only due to an accident that occurred in connection with his/her duties, the causal relationship between his/her duties shall be deemed to exist, and if the aggravated part becomes worse or its symptoms are not fixed even before the aggravation or aggravation, it shall be treated as occupational accident until the symptoms are fixed, and the causal relationship shall not be clearly proved by medical and scientific evidence as to the worker's health condition at the time of his/her employment, the developments and contents of the disease, and the progress of treatment, etc., and it shall be deemed that there is no proof that there is a causal relationship between the occupational accident and the disease's ability to provide medical care benefits to the worker at least 90.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance and records, the plaintiff was found to have been suffering from the 7th ambling of the 6th ambling of the 1st ambling of the 7th ambling of the ambling of the 7th ambling of the ambling of the ambling of the 7th ambling of the ambling of the ambling of the ambling of the 7th ambling of the ambling of the ambling of the ambling of the ambling of the ambling of the 7th ambling of the ambling of the ambling of the ambling of the ambling of the ambling of the ambling of the ambling of the ambling of the ambling of the ambling of the ambling of the ambling of the ambling of the ambling of the ambling.

Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, even though the Plaintiff’s symptoms of acute scarcity or light-scarcity escape certificate among the injury of this case did not seem to have any aspect that can be seen as changing scarcity due to the natural progress of the disease, such as the Defendant’s advisory opinion, etc., the Plaintiff did not appear to have raised any special symptoms until the accident of this case, and the content of the accident of this case goes back to the lower part of the Plaintiff’s title, and the lower part of the chest was faced with the lower part of the lower part of the lower part, and the directly shocked on the chest part of the lower part, and the Plaintiff’s opinion such as the doctor, etc., the Plaintiff’s opinion, and the Defendant’s medical treatment approval for the Plaintiff’s acute scarcity or light-scarlet escape certificate were sufficient to deem that the Plaintiff’s acute scarcity or light-scarcity escape certificate also fell under the Plaintiff’s occupational progress beyond the existing one due to the shock.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the plaintiff's above injury did not constitute an occupational accident with a proximate causal relation to the business. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on occupational accident, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, 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 Young-ran (Presiding Justice)