[1] The burden of proof and degree of proof as to the causal relationship between the occupational accident and the occupational accident

[2] Whether an occupational accident may be recognized even if there is no direct evidence as to the cause of the disaster (affirmative with qualification)

[3] In a case where a defect in a facility or a business owner's neglect of facility management conflicts with other reasons, whether an occupational accident is recognized (affirmative with qualification)

[4] The case recognizing occupational accidents on the ground that occupational accidents occurred due to competition between the occupational failure of workers and the management defect of the workshop due to stress, in a case where an employee suffering from side galves from side malves died due to fall and death of a worker who died due to fall

[1] The occupational accident under Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to an accident caused by an employee's occupational accident while performing his/her duties, so there is a proximate causal relation between the employee's occupational accident and the accident. In this case, the causal relation between the employee's occupational accident and the accident should be proved by the party asserting it. However, the existence of a proximate causal relation between the occupational accident and the accident should be determined on the basis of the employee's health and physical condition, not by the average person, but by the average person. Further, the degree of proof of the causal relation does not necessarily have to be clearly proved by medical and natural science, and it is proved even if there

[2] Even if there is no direct evidence as to the cause of a disaster, if it is possible to presume the existence of a business operation based on the theory that can be reasonably explained in accordance with the rules of experience based on indirect facts, etc., it shall be deemed that it is an occupational accident.

[3] In a case where a disaster occurs due to a defect in facilities managed by a business owner or an neglecting of management of facilities by a business owner, or where a disaster occurs due to a defect in facilities or failure of management of such facilities or concurrent causes with other causes, such accident shall be deemed an occupational accident except for the case of self-harm, etc.

[4] The case holding that in case where a worker suffering from side galves died after falling back the workshop and died, the occupational accident was recognized on the ground that the worker's occupational disorder and the management defect of the workshop due to the worker's occupational disorder or stress competes with each other and caused the accident

[1] Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act / [2] Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act / [3] Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act / [4] Article 4 subparagraph 1 of

[1] Supreme Court Decision 93Nu9408 delivered on October 12, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 3101), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu2565 delivered on June 28, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2135), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu2633 delivered on August 26, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2545), Supreme Court Decision 97Nu7011 delivered on September 5, 1997 (Gong197Ha, 3125), Supreme Court Decision 98Du4740 delivered on May 22, 1998 (Gong198Ha, 1782)

Plaintiff

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Gwangju High Court Decision 97Gu4110 delivered on May 15, 1998

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. For the purpose of Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the term "occupational accident" refers to an accident caused by an employee's occupational accident while performing his/her duties, which requires a proximate causal relation between the employee's occupational accident and the accident. In this case, the causal relation between the employee's occupational accident should be proved on the basis of the worker's health and physical condition, not an average person. However, the existence of proximate causal relation between the occupational accident and the accident should be determined on the basis of the worker's health and physical condition, not an average person. In addition, the degree of proximate causal relation should not be clearly proved in medical and natural science, but it is presumed that there is a proximate causal relation between the occupational accident and the accident (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Nu2565, Jun. 28, 1994). Thus, even if there is no direct evidence as to the cause of the accident, if it can be presumed that the employee's occupational accident occurred due to the defect or the accident's facility management or self-harm caused by another accident.

2. After finding the facts as stated in its reasoning, the court below found that the non-party 1, the husband of the plaintiff, was aware of this fact as to the non-party company at the time of the death, but he did not know of this fact, although he was ordered to attend school at the time of his death, he did not move his car from Gwangju to Busan and did not take proper waters, and he did physical way and mental stress by preparing meeting data. In this case, other than that, the above deceased did not appear to commit suicide on the part of the above worker in a normal food condition, the court below's determination that the above defect caused harm to the above awareness function of the deceased and caused a considerable time, and that the above defect did not constitute a fall from the above work site with the above work clothes, and thus, it cannot be viewed that there was an error in the law of the court below's finding that the non-party 14th of the above accident did not freely affect the worker's work at the place where the above worker's work was in violation of the safety rules of the company.

The decisions cited by the theory of lawsuit are those that cannot be presumed to have been caused by the death of a private person in the event of unknown circumstances, and are inappropriate to be invoked in this case.

In addition, the court below did not recognize that the deceased committed suicide in the claim for insurance money filed by the plaintiff against the non-party Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd., and did not recognize the deceased's death immediately as a result of occupational accident, but merely accepted as evidence of fact-finding to determine whether the records of the claim for the above insurance money were occupational accident. Thus, the court below cannot be deemed to have exceeded the difference between industrial accident compensation insurance and life insurance. 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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)