In a case where a new injury or disease occurs while an employee was suffering from an occupational accident, whether a new injury or disease should have a causal relationship between a new occupational accident and the first occupational accident in order to view the new injury or disease as an occupational accident (affirmative)

Article 5 subparagraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

Supreme Court Decision 91Nu5624 Decided November 12, 1991 (Gong1992, 142) Supreme Court Decision 2009Du14163 Decided March 25, 2010 (Gong2007Sang, 104) Supreme Court Decision 2014Du3501 Decided November 26, 2015

Plaintiff (Law Firm Cho & Lee, Attorneys Park Yong-ju et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 2014Nu4384 decided February 7, 2017

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The occupational accident under Article 5 subparag. 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to the injury, disease, physical disability, or death caused by a worker's occupational accident while performing his/her duties. As such, there should be causation between the occupational accident and the occupational accident. In cases where a new injury or disease occurred during the medical care due to an occupational accident, in order to view such new injury or disease as an occupational accident, at least there should be causation between the new occupational accident and the new occupational accident (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu5624, Nov. 12, 191). In the course of treating an occupational accident, even in cases where a new injury or disease occurred due to the side effect of medicine or treatment method, a new injury or disease must be viewed as an occupational accident only when the causal relationship exists between them. The causal relationship here should be proved to the extent that there is a proximate causal relationship in consideration of all the circumstances such as medical and natural science, but indirect facts, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Du36164, Apr. 16, 20015).

In light of such legal principles and records, the lower court’s conclusion is justifiable to have determined that “the causal relationship between brain cerebrovasculars and the deceased’s private death cannot be acknowledged, as it is difficult to view that cerebrovascular, a private person, was caused by the side effects of the previous cerebrovascular or the treatment method thereof, or aggravated beyond nature and caused the deceased’s death.” In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence inconsistent with logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles

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

Justices Kwon Soon-il (Presiding Justice)