2013Du16760 Revocation of revocation of the revocation of the payment of bereaved family's compensation.

A person shall be appointed.

The Government Employees Pension Service

Seoul High Court Decision 2012Nu35483 Decided July 18, 2013

January 29, 2015

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the court below, the court below held that the plaintiff's husband B (hereinafter "the deceased").

The Plaintiff rejected the Plaintiff’s claim seeking the payment of bereaved family’s compensation, inasmuch as it is recognized that the suicide occurred during the course of the medical treatment due to an injury or disease inflicted on official duty, but the causal relation between the deceased and his/her suicide cannot be recognized

2. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

A. “A disease caused by official duties” under Article 61(1) of the former Public Officials Pension Act (amended by Act No. 10984, Aug. 4, 201; hereinafter the same shall apply) refers to a disease caused by a public official in the course of performing his/her duties, and thus there is a proximate causal relationship between a public official’s and a disease. The causal relationship should be proved by the assertion, but if a proximate causal relationship is acknowledged from a normative point of view even if it is not clearly proven in medical and natural science, it should be deemed that there was proof. Therefore, in a case where a public official committed suicide, the disease was caused or aggravated due to the occurrence of a public official’s disease in the line of duty or due to excessive stress in the line of the main cause of the disease, and if it is impossible to expect a reasonable judgment due to such disease, a proximate causal relationship between the official duties and the death. In addition, in order to acknowledge such proximate causal relationship, a reasonable causal relationship should be comprehensively considered in light of the person’s mental and physical condition, and symptoms, etc.

B. Review of the reasoning of the first instance judgment as cited by the lower court and the record reveals the following facts. (1) The Deceased has worked at C Elementary School as a person in charge of school facilities management, and on July 19, 2010.

08: At around 40, while checking the breakdown of a water tank circular on the rooftop of the main body of the above school, he suffered from the incident of this case where hot water flows out of its face, "hhographs and pyrographs (hereinafter "the injury of this case")." (hereinafter "the injury of this case").

(2) On July 28, 2010, while the Deceased was sent to the hospital after the accident and hospitalized treatment, the Deceased was subject to the first poppy surgery at D Hospital on July 28, 2010. At the time, the Deceased was in a serious state of damage, such as the full damage of the surface of the stowing part of each unit and the observation of hopical opinion, etc., so it was impossible for the Deceased to expect the recovery of the stowing part of each unit only once due to a poppy surgery. As a result of the observation of the 16-day progress after the said surgery, each upper part of the stowing part of each unit showed a quantity recovered, but it was difficult to predict the possibility of recovery of the stowing part of each unit, as the overall situation is not good, and continuous medical treatment, such as an operation, was necessary and it was difficult to predict.

(3) On September 2, 2010, the Deceased received the second poppy surgery from the East Asia University Medical Center. Since the loss of each poppy was not different at the time, the second surgery is not significantly helpful for recovery of eyesight, and the second surgery is expected to be with recovery of eyesight due to the lack of leaps, and the opinion of new blood transfusions were observed, and the second surgery was also expected to be worse. Even after the operation, the leapsian’s turology was 0.2 on February 20, 201, but it was necessary to transplant of each dead and each dead body as a fundamental treatment, but it was judged that it was possible to perform the surgery after stabilizing the condition of each dead body, the time of operation was fixed, and even if the operation was not performed, the possibility of recovery was low.

(4) On September 26, 2010, the Deceased received medical treatment after the accident, and lived mainly within the house according to the doctor’s instructions, and did not appear with other family members other than the Plaintiff. (5) The Deceased complained of concerns about future treatment, such as the recovery of the injury and disease of this case, and the need to undergo an additional operation, and thus, the treatment becomes long-term. (5) On the same day, the Deceased complained of concern about future treatment, or uneasiness and chilling caused it. On September 26, 2010, the Plaintiff and its brothers and sisters were blickly suffering from the blick phone, and it is difficult for their families to live. Accordingly, it is difficult for their wife, children, and their families to request it well. On the same day, the Deceased’s sending text messages to the purport, and concealed the blick with the string in preparation for the sports park at around 16:05.

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

In addition, the Deceased was suffering from physical pain due to the instant injury while performing his/her duties, as well as uneasiness for the loss of eyesight, and as a view to his/her and his/her family’s wife, etc. In addition, the occurrence of depression caused by serious physical damage is highly likely to cause severe depression of the Deceased due to the instant accident. While the Deceased was performing two times of the instant injury, recovery was made due to extensive damage to each of the instant injury, and there was further need for each of the instant injury, but even if the surgery was performed, it would not have been expected that the eyesight would have been recovered due to the accident, and thereby, the depression of the Deceased would have deteriorated more.

Ultimately, it is reasonable to view that the Deceased committed suicide only for two months after the occurrence of the accident, due to extreme stress, due to the outbreak of depression, that is, after suffering from the instant injury and loss of eyesight. Moreover, there was no record of diagnosis or treatment due to the mental disease such as depression before entering the instant injury, and there was no other evidence to deem that the Deceased contracted, or committed suicide due to other factors.

On the other hand, even if the deceased committed suicide, a proximate causal relationship may be acknowledged between the deceased’s official duties and the death, on the ground that the deceased’s personal vulnerability, such as the character of the deceased, may have partially influenced the resolution of suicide, and thus, it does not change. The deceased’s personal vulnerability, such as the suicide, may have partly influenced the deceased’s resolution on suicide. The deceased’s personality, etc., may not change.

D. Nevertheless, the lower court did not closely examine the details, motive, etc. of the deceased’s suicide, and determined that the deceased’s mental stress caused by the instant injury and injury caused by mental stress cannot be deemed to have caused suicide due to his or her mental disorder to the degree of suicide, or that his or her normal ability to select an act was significantly deteriorated, and denied the causal relationship between the deceased’s death and his or her official duty. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on causal relationship between the deceased’s death and the death in the line of duty, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation in the grounds of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

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 Min Il-young

Justices Park Young-young

Jeju High Court Decision 201Na1548

Justices Kim Jong-il