[1] The meaning of death caused by a disease in the line of duty under Article 61 (1) of the Public Officials Pension Act, and whether causation exists in a case where a disease is caused or aggravated as a result of overlapping the main cause of the disease in the line of duty (affirmative)

[2] Whether there is a causal relationship between death and official duty in a case where a medical malpractice in the course of treating a disease due to official duty, or a public official in question was negligent in failing to give instructions on medical care (affirmative)

[1] "Death caused by a disease caused by official duty, which is a requirement for the payment of bereaved family's compensation under Article 61 (1) of the Public Officials Pension Act, refers to a disease caused by official duty, and there is a proximate causal relation between official duty and the disease. However, even if the main cause of the disease is not directly related to official duty, if the disease overlaps with the main cause of the disease and the excess of official duty, etc., or if the existing disease significantly worsens above the natural speed due to excessive performance of duty, it should be deemed that there exists a causal relation.

[2] Even if the disease has become worse due to the side effects of medicine in the course of treating a disease in the course of performing official duties, there is still a causal relationship between the death of the disease and the official duties. Also, the public official in question is negligent by giving a doctor's instructions on medical care, and the public official in question has been done with gross negligence or without any justifiable reason, and there is no reason to reduce the amount of benefits under Article 62 (3) 1 of the Public Officials Pension Act and Article 53 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. However, there is no reason to deny causal relationship between death and official duties.

[1] Article 61 (1) of the Public Officials Pension Act / [2] Articles 61 (1) and 62 (3) 1 of the Public Officials Pension Act, Article 53 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Officials Pension Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 90Nu8817 delivered on February 22, 1991 (Gong1991, 1097), Supreme Court Decision 92Nu5355 delivered on July 24, 1992 (Gong1992, 2567), Supreme Court Decision 92Nu15819 delivered on February 23, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 1094), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu19030 delivered on February 25, 1994 (Gong194, 1118), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu6103 delivered on September 6, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 3029)

Plaintiff (Attorney Nam-jin et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellee)

Public Official Pension Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 98Nu8157 delivered on October 22, 1998

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 61(1) of the Public Officials Pension Act provides that “Death caused by a disease caused by a public duty, which serves as the requirement for the payment of compensation for survivors of public officials, shall have a proximate causal relationship between the disease caused by the public duty and the disease. However, even if the main cause of the disease is not directly related to the public duty, even if the main cause of the disease overlaps with the main cause of the disease and the disease, or if the existing disease rapidly aggravated above the natural progress due to the excessive performance of the duty, it shall be deemed that there exists a causal relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu6103, Sept. 6, 1996). Even if the disease was aggravated more due to the side effect of medicine involving the medical malpractice or administered, there is still a causal relationship between the death caused by the disease and the public official’s disease, and thus, there is no gross negligence or without any justifiable reason, and apart from the causal relationship between the death and the public official’s benefits under Article 62(3)1 and 53 of the Public Officials Pension Act.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below found that the non-party, who is the plaintiff's deceased father, had no specific health problems at the time of appointment as a local public official, and was found to be a non-permanent infected patient while on duty, and was found to be a chronic infected patient six years thereafter, and that the disease had already been developed into livering with the wind, such as frequent travel service without proper treatment due to business relations, the court below rejected the judgment of the court below that there was no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the death of 197, since the non-party, who is the plaintiff's deceased father, was prepared a protopy which was developed from the oriental medical doctor of Gyeong-hee University from the oriental medical doctor of Korea on December 14, 196, and her health conditions have deteriorated more than two to three days, and there was no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the death of 197, as it did not immediately affect the judgment of the court below, and there was no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to 197.

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)