[1] Meaning of "occupational accidents" under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and proof of causation between occupational accidents and diseases

[2] The case holding that it does not constitute occupational accidents in a case where the cleaning personnel, who transferred Gap's upper cancer to 11 chests, suffered from a brupt injury in the course of carrying the guns of wastes into cleaning vehicles, and died of "Athram, brus, and heart brus" during the treatment process

[1] The term "occupational accident" under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to an accident caused by an employee's occupational accident while performing his/her duties, so if the accident is caused by a disease, a proximate causal relation between the employee and the disease should be established. In this case, the causal relation between the employee's occupational and the disease must be proved by the claimant. Even if the causal relation is not necessarily required to be clearly proved by medical and natural science, the causal relation between the occupational and the disease should be estimated between the occupational and the disease, considering all circumstances, such as the worker's health condition at the time of employment, whether there was a cause of the outbreak in the workplace, whether there was another worker's same kind of disease working at the same workplace,

[2] The case holding that it does not constitute an occupational accident on the ground that there is no ground to view that the crypam aggravated or the working environment was caused by the crypoids, in the course of the treatment when the cleaning personnel, who was transferred to the 11st century, was injured by the hypoids in the process of loading the guns of wastes into the cleaning vehicle, and died from the 'Athprypumumumumumumum, sypumumumumumumumum, and s

[1] Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act / [2] Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Nu2565 delivered on June 28, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2135), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu2633 delivered on August 26, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2545) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 90Nu295 delivered on May 22, 1990 (Gong1990, 1387), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu408 delivered on March 22, 1994 (Gong194Sang, 1352)

Plaintiff (Attorney Jin-jin, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 96Gu24202 delivered on April 3, 1997

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since the "occupational accident" of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to an accident caused by the worker's work while performing his duties, there is a proximate causal relation between the worker and the disease, and in this case, the causal relation between the worker's work and the disease should be proved by the claimant, and even if it is not necessarily necessary to prove clearly medical and naturally, the causal relation between the worker's health condition at the time of employment, whether there was a cause of the outbreak in the workplace, whether there was another worker's disease in the same workplace, and whether there was a change of the same kind of disease working in the same workplace in the same workplace (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu2633 delivered on August 26, 194). Thus, the court below determined that the causal relation between the worker Gap's first and the disease's first unstable disease caused by the worker's work and the disease should not be acknowledged as a aggravated causal relation between the worker Gap's occupational disease and the worker's first unstable disease.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and decision of the court below shall not be justified and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misunderstanding of the legal principles as to occupational diseases in the process of finding it. All arguments are without merit

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)