Methods and degree of proof of causal relations between official duties and diseases, which are the requirement for payment of bereaved family's compensation under Article 61 (1) of the Public Officials Pension Act.

Article 61 (1) of the Public Officials Pension Act

Supreme Court Decision 2004Du5324 Decided August 20, 2004, Supreme Court Decision 2005Du15373 Decided September 8, 2006, Supreme Court Decision 2006Du1374 Decided May 31, 2007

Plaintiff (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Sang-ok et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Public Official Pension Corporation (Attorney Doo-sung, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2012Nu11111 decided October 25, 2012

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 61 (1) of the Public Officials Pension Act provides that "Death caused by a disease or injury incurred in the course of performing official duties, which is the requirement for the payment of compensation for survivors of public officials, refers to a disaster caused in the course of performing official duties." Thus, there should be causation between the disease and public official duties, and the causal relationship should be proved by the assertion of such causal relationship. The method and degree of proof does not necessarily have to be clearly proved by direct evidence, and it is sufficient if it is proved to the extent that proximate causal relationship between the disease and public official duties is estimated due to indirect facts, such as the health condition at the time of employment, the existence of existing disease, the nature of the work, and the working environment of the public official, and whether the same disease or existing disease of another public official who works at the same workplace is transferred to the same workplace. In addition, it is also included in public duties where the basic disease or existing disease which can normally perform official duties becomes worse rapidly above the natural progress speed, but it is not presumed that the cause of the public official's death was caused by public official duties immediately (see, e.g.

After finding the facts as stated in its reasoning, the court below determined that the deceased's injury was excessive to the extent that the deceased's death was caused by any reason, and that the deceased's death was caused by the strong prosecutor of the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office, and the situation that the deceased was in charge of many important cases, but the deceased's body condition as 30th early team at the time of death was healthy, and about 10 months after being placed in the strong department, and it was deemed that the deceased's physical condition was adapted to work after being placed in the strong department, and that the deceased's occupational accident was excessive to the extent that the deceased's rapid physiological change was caused by a sudden death, in light of the working hours before the death, and working hours and working conditions of the manual inspectors. In particular, the court below determined that it was difficult to view the causal relationship between the deceased's death and the deceased's injury caused by frequent drinking of women's child-friendly body, and the deceased's injury caused by frequently visiting a large number of times before the death.

Examining the above legal principles in light of the records, the above fact-finding and determination by the court below are just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in finding facts beyond the bounds of the principle of logic and experience and free evaluation of evidence, or in misapprehending the legal principles as to the causal relationship between the

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 Min Il-young (Presiding Justice)