2013Du21977 Non-approval for survivors' benefits

A

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Daejeon High Court (Cheongju) Decision 2013Nu247 Decided September 11, 2013

March 12, 2015

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon 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, and there is a proximate causal relation between his/her duties and the disaster. The proximate causal relation should be proved by the assertion of such proximate causal relation. However, even if the proximate causal relation is not necessarily proved by medical or natural science, if there is a proximate causal relation from a normative point of view. In cases where a worker committed suicide, the disease occurs as a result of occupational disease or occupational disorder or stress overlaps with the main cause of the disease, thereby resulting in the occurrence or aggravation of the disease, and if it is presumed that such disease was committed in such a situation that the normal perception ability, ability to choose action, mental suppression ability, or considerable decrease in the ability to prevent such disease, a proximate causal relation between his/her duties and the death may be acknowledged. To find such proximate causal relation should be comprehensively considered in light of the degree of the disease or aftermath, the period of medical treatment, the possibility of recovery, physical or psychological situation surrounding the person, etc.

2. Review of the reasoning of the first instance judgment as cited by the lower court and the record reveals the following facts.

A. On April 1, 2010, the Plaintiff’s husband (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s husband”) entered E Co., Ltd. operating the electrical construction business (hereinafter “instant company”) as the chief of electric installations, and mainly takes charge of the repair work such as signal, etc., and led and supervised the performance of the work according to the order of the ordering office.

B. On May 1, 2011, the instant company was awarded a contract with the Korea Basic Science Support Institute for Construction Works (electric, fire fighting) (hereinafter “instant construction”). The content of the instant construction was to construct electric and fire fighting equipment on “L within the site of the K Center of the Korea Basic Science Support Institute within the site of the K Center and “M” and the construction period was from June 1, 201 to November 30, 201. “L” was a condition that “L was completed from June 1, 2011 and November 15, 201.”

C. On May 23, 2011, the instant company dispatched the Deceased to the site representative at the instant construction site. The Deceased, while staying at the instant construction site, has overall control over the instant construction project, and has performed duties of direct consultation with the ordering authority supervisor, supervisor, or other construction business operators from time to time.

D. From June 201, 201, the instant construction was commenced on the first time (the scheduled date of completion was November 15, 201), but the construction began to be delayed since the end of June 2011, and further, the construction was delayed due to the overlapping of the schedule with other processes, such as civil engineering works, or the selection and storage procedures for materials (special cables). The ordering agency urged the instant construction works, which fall under the subsequent process, as well as civil engineering works, construction works, and subsequent construction works, and the deceased had due care to the possibility of the occurrence of various accidents in the parallel of the instant construction works at the request of the ordering office without completion of the construction works, as well as to conflicts with the persons related to the prior construction works.

E. While working at the construction site of this case as a field agent, the Deceased complained of several appeals against the company’s related parties and his wife, etc. as to the lack of technical capabilities and difficulties to counter the supervisor on the ordering site. The Deceased’s appeal was made: ① In the event that construction cannot be executed in accordance with the design drawing, the modification of the design drawing is not sufficient due to the lack of technical capabilities; ② in the early stage of the construction work, the Deceased did not timely select a supervisor on the construction site; ② the supervisor did not talk with the ordering site and tried to consult with all the tasks with the Deceased without communicating with the supervisor or the on-site director, etc.; ③ the ordering site supervisor is not a document, and ③ there is unclear responsibility for the content of the order as well as modification from time to time, ④ the Deceased’s attempt to unilaterally determine the direction of work with the site manager, etc. as well as the direction of construction; ④ The Deceased’s demand for re-preparation or re-preparation of the ordering site was not made from time to time in relation to the work site drawing(s).

F. On September 201, 201, the Deceased requested the instant company to change the work site. However, the instant company urged that the instant company will continue to perform its duties on the ground that there is no person who can be dispatched as a field agent other than the Deceased, and the instant construction is not difficult to do so. On November 16, 2011, the Deceased requested a change of duties on the ground that “in writing, it is difficult to ensure the smooth progress in the construction process of the instant case.” However, the instant company did not take any measures because it is difficult for the instant company to continue to perform its duties only during the period of November 201.

G. The Deceased had two married children between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, and there was no particular obligation on the part of the Deceased, and according to the health insurance benefit content of the Deceased, there was no special problem on health before working at the construction site of this case. However, the Deceased independenced that he would want to die and have a small number of horses after working at the construction site of this case, and that there was an outbreak of dynamic infection and neutism, and that there was mental stress from a medical specialist of psychotropic surgery, while suffering from ethical stress.

H. The Deceased worked on the five-day basis of a week and retired from work at around 18:30, while serving as a field agent at the construction site of this case, the Deceased worked on an extended work period from September 201, 4 days in September 201, 5 days in October 201, 5 days in October 201, and 4 days in November 201 in November 201.

I. At around 20:30 on December 7, 201, the Deceased left a text message stating, “I do not seem to be too little, I do not see it,” and the contact was cut down. On December 9, 201, the Deceased was discovered on his own in his own car parked on the road adjacent to the instant construction site. On December 9, 2011, the Deceased’s remaining remains as of December 7, 201, including not only the unclaimed mind about his family members, but also the original network for those who made efforts to commit himself.

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

Although the deceased’s previous duties were relatively simple to repair and maintain signals, etc. according to the work order of the ordering office, the duties of the agent at the electrical construction site of the building performed at the construction site of this case were to exercise overall control over the electrical construction and fire-fighting construction of the building in a considerable scale, to direct the field work by directly comparing the ordering office, supervisor, related construction companies, etc., and to direct the design-related technical capabilities. The deceased, as the on-site agent of the building electrical construction site of a building first entrusted with the lack of on-site experience or technical capabilities, has a burden of determining all of his/her own work and directly opposing the ordering office, etc., and was faced with the collapse and pressure due to the shortage of business capabilities. Accordingly, severe stress was accumulated, and after working at the construction site of this case, he/she complained of his/her own mental pain. The deceased did not suffer from a sound depression, and there is no personal problem, such as family relations or property relations, and there is no other special reason to view that there is no evidence other than the above.

The Deceased requested the instant company to change his work and change his work before about 20 days prior to suicide. However, as the Deceased refused to commit this, it could not escape from extreme occupational stress and serious mental suffering, it seems that the pressure and pressure of the deceased might have aggravated.

In full view of such factors as the degree and duration of pressure caused by stress on work to the deceased, the physical and mental situation of the deceased, the surrounding circumstances surrounding the deceased, the degree of the outbreak and aggravation of depression, and the circumstances where there are no other reasons to serve as a motive or an opportunity for the deceased to choose suicide, etc., the deceased was placed in a situation to the extent that it is impossible to expect a reasonable judgment due to the aggravation of depression due to serious occupational stress and mental pain immediately before the suicide, and there is sufficient room to presume that the deceased’s work and death were caused by suicide. As such, proximate causation may be acknowledged between the deceased’s work and the death. Although personal vulnerability, such as the character of the deceased, such as the character of the deceased, is likely to have partly affected the suicide, it does not change on the ground that there is a possibility that the deceased might have affected the suicide.

4. Nevertheless, the lower court denied the causal relationship between the deceased’s death and the work, on the ground that the deceased’s suicide was caused by changes in the content and intensity of his duties at the time, and the possibility of the occurrence and aggravation of the depression of the deceased due to such mental stress, and the background and motive leading up to the suicide, etc. of the deceased, and did not follow a more closely. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the causal relationship between the deceased’s death and the death in occupational accidents, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The ground of appeal pointing this out 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 Min Il-young

Justices Park Young-young

Justices Kim In-bok, Counsel for defendant

Justices Kim Jong-il