The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Since occupational accidents under Article 5 subparagraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refer to the injury, disease, physical disability, or death caused by the worker's occupational accident while performing his/her duties, there is a causal relationship between his/her duties and the occurrence of an occupational accident. In cases where a new injury or disease occurred during medical care due to an occupational accident, it should be revealed that there is a causal relationship between the new occupational accident and the new occupational accident in order to view such new injury or disease as an occupational accident

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu5624, Nov. 12, 1991). In a case where a medical malpractice interventions in the course of treating an injury or a new injury or disease occurs due to a side effect of medicine or treatment method, a new injury or disease may be deemed as an occupational accident only when the causal relationship exists between them.

Here, the causal relationship is not necessarily required to be proved clearly in medical and natural science, but it should be proved to the extent that there is a proximate causal relationship in light of all the circumstances, such as indirect facts, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Du14163 Decided March 25, 2010, and Supreme Court Decision 2014Du3501 Decided November 26, 2015, etc.) In light of such legal principles and records, the lower court’s conclusion is justifiable to have determined that “the proximate causal relation between brain cerebrovascular and cerebrovascular, a private person of the deceased, cannot be acknowledged, as it is difficult to deem that the deceased’s death was caused by cerebrovascular, a private person, due to side effects of the existing injury or side effects of the treatment method, or aggravated natural progress, and thus, the deceased’s death is difficult.”

In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against.