[1] Whether a worker's private life can be presumed to be a death due to his/her duties where it is unclear (negative)

[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below which presumed to have died of a heart disease due to cumulative occupational and stress caused by excessive work on the ground that it failed to complete deliberation on the cause of death, the causal relationship between overtime work and death, etc.

[1] For the recognition of death due to an occupational reason as stipulated in Article 4 subparagraph 1(a) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the pertinent death is caused by the death, and there is a proximate causal relation between the business and the accident. In this case, the causal relation between the worker's business and the accident should be proved by the claimant. Thus, if the worker's private life is unclear, it cannot be presumed to be caused by the death

[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below which presumed to have died of a heart disease due to cumulative occupational stress, on the ground that it failed to exhaust all necessary deliberations on the cause of death, the causal relationship between overtime work and death, etc.

[1] Article 4 subparag. 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act, Articles 8(2) and 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 4 subparag. 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act, Articles 8(2) and 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [Burden of proof]

[1] Supreme Court Decision 88Nu5037 delivered on October 23, 1990 (Gong1990, 2425) Supreme Court Decision 96Nu1726 delivered on February 25, 1997, Supreme Court Decision 97Nu19984 delivered on February 27, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 1520) Supreme Court Decision 98Du13287 delivered on April 24, 1998 (Gong199Sang, 1520), Supreme Court Decision 97Nu16459 delivered on April 23, 199 (Gong199, 147), Supreme Court Decision 200Du13287 delivered on April 23, 199 (Gong1999; 106Du13038 delivered on September 36, 200).

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Il-jin, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Daejeon High Court Decision 2002Nu1708 delivered on July 10, 2003

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daejeon High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. 원심판결 이유에 의하면, 원심은 원고의 남편인 망 소외 1(이하 '망인'이라 한다)은 1999. 11. 9. 반도체장비의 제조, 개선을 주된 사업으로 하는 주식회사 윈테크(이하 '윈테크'라 한다)의 창립사원으로 입사하여 기술팀 대리로 재직하던 중에, 2000. 11. 29. 02:20경 자신의 집에서 잠을 자다가 입에 거품을 물고 의식을 잃은 채 발견되어 병원으로 후송되었으나 이미 사망한 사실, 망인의 약정 근무시간은 08:30부터 18:00까지(점심시간 1시간)인데 망인은 윈테크의 사무실에서 일하는 경우도 있지만 통상 현대전자 주식회사(이하 '현대전자'라 한다) 청주반도체공장에서 2∼3명이 한 조가 되어 반도체장비의 개조·개선·유지보수업무를 수행하였고, 망인의 구체적인 업무는 개조, 개선대상인 반도체장비에 부착되어 있는 기구를 스케치한 후 윈테크의 설계프로그램을 이용하여 설계도면을 작성한 다음, 판금·가공업체에 제품의 제작을 의뢰하여 완성품을 납품받아 이를 반도체공장에 설치하고 시험하는 일이었는데, 위와 같은 업무는 공정이 세밀하여 사소한 이상동작에도 문제가 발생하는 관계로 정신적인 스트레스를 많이 받았으며, 더욱이 망인은 2000. 11. 10.경 실수로 제품의 하자가 발생하여 윈테크에 7,500,000원 정도의 손실을 입힌 일과 관련하여 회사로부터 주의를 받아 심한 스트레스를 받게 된 사실, 망인이 수행한 업무의 특성상 반도체공장의 현장장비 상황에 따라 퇴근시간은 일정하지 아니하였지만 사망하기 전날에도 현대전자에서 22:25에 퇴근할 정도로 연장근로하는 경우가 많았고, 사망하기 3일 전 일요일인 1999. 11. 26.에도 출근하여 현대전자에서 19:00에 퇴근하는 등 휴일에도 근무하곤 하였으며 사망하기 전 9일간은 계속 근무한 사실, 망인은 평소 현대전자에서 업무를 마치고 바로 퇴근하지 아니하고 윈테크의 사무실로 돌아와 일을 더 하거나 심지어 퇴근한 이후에도 집에서 설계도면을 검토하는 등 회사업무를 하는 경우도 있었으며, 그로 인하여 퇴근한 이후 자녀들에게 안마를 하여 달라고 할 정도로 피로를 호소하여 왔던 사실, 망인은 평소 별다른 질병은 없었고 중등도 정도의 비만 상태에 있었는데 사망하기 며칠 전부터 가슴이 조금 답답하다고 호소하였던 사실, 망인의 사체에 대한 부검은 이루어지지 않아 망인의 사인은 정확히 밝혀지지 않았는데, 망인을 최초 진료한 충북대학교병원 소속 의사 소외 2는 망인의 사인을 돌연사로 진단하였고, 사인에 대한 의견조회회신에서는 망인이 평소 건강하였던 것으로 볼 때 급성 심인성 쇼크사의 가능성이 가장 크고 그 원인으로는 급성 심부전증이나 급성 심근질환이 될 수 있다고 회신하였으며, 망인의 사체를 검안한 의사 소외 3은 망인의 사인을 급성 심근질환에 의한 심부전증으로 추정한 사실, 망인과 같이 건강에 별다른 이상이 없거나 특이한 증상이 없던 사람이 수면 도중에 갑자기 사망하는 경우를 돌연사라고 하고, 돌연사의 대부분은 심장이 원인이므로 의학적으로 급성심장사라 하며, 급성심장사는 일반적으로 질병 자체나 질병 원인을 의미하는 것이 아니라 해부학적으로 증명되는 심장의 질병 유무와 관계없이 급성증상이 발생하여 1시간 이내에 의식소실과 함께 심장의 이상으로 사망하는 것을 말하는데, 관상동맥질환이나 심근비대, 심근질환(심근염, 심근증), 심전도계장애, 심부전, 심장판막질환, 선천성 심장병 등 심장질환이 주요한 원인이나 심장의 구조적 이상 없이도 급사하는 사례가 보고되어 있고, 과도한 신체활동 중이거나 후에 급사가 발생하는 것으로 보아 과로나 심한 스트레스도 발병유인이 될 가능성이 있다고 알려져 있다는 사실을 인정한 다음, 위 인정 사실에 의하면 망인은 돌연사(급성심장사)한 것으로 봄이 상당한데, 망인이 평소 약정 근로시간보다 3 ~ 4시간을 초과하여 근무하고 휴일에도 근무하는 경우가 많았으며 사망하기 전날에도 22:25경에 퇴근하는 등 과중한 업무를 하여 왔고, 업무 특성상 세심한 주의가 필요한 데다가 자신의 실수로 회사에 손실을 입혀 스트레스를 받아온 점, 과로와 스트레스가 급성심장사 유발의 한 원인으로 알려져 있는 점, 망인은 평소 특별한 질병이나 지병이 없었고 그 밖에 다른 요인이 가공되어 망인이 사망하였다고 볼 만한 자료도 없는 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 망인은 윈테크에서 과중한 업무를 계속한 결과 그로 인한 과로 및 스트레스가 누적되어 심장질환이 유발되어 사망한 것으로 추단되므로 망인의 사망은 업무상 재해에 해당하고, 따라서 원고의 유족급여 및 장의비 지급청구를 거부한 이 사건 처분은 위법하다고 판단하였다.

2. The summary of the judgment of the court below is on the premise that it is reasonable to view the death of the deceased as a sudden death in accordance with the opinion of the doctor non-party 2 and non-party 3 as a sudden death in which the death of the deceased was caused by an abnormal heart. In light of the above fact that the heart funeral is reported as a sudden death without a major cause or structural defect of the heart, such as an acute beer disorder, and that an excessive physical activity or after the death of the deceased is known as a cause of acute heart funeral, excessive stress and stress are likely to occur, and it is presumed that the death of the heart was caused by an excessive work, and that the death of the deceased was presumed to have been caused by a heart disease, and even if we accept the premise of the judgment of the court below that the death of the deceased was a acute heart funeral service, it is difficult to understand the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

First of all, during the work of the Deceased, who was recognized by the court below, was employed on November 9, 199 by the Deceased, and there were many duties requiring detailed attention in performing the duties of remodeling, improving, maintaining, and repairing semiconductor equipment until he dies on November 29, 200. On the day before the death, there were many overtime work such as leaving office in 22:25 on the day before the death, and there were many cases where the deceased was engaged in the business at the home after his retirement, and the deceased continued to work for 9 days before his death, including working at the office on November 26, 200 on Sundays, and on the other hand, the deceased worked for 4 to 5 years in the same professional technical field even before his work at the windowte, and there were no special problems about the work environment or conditions for about 1 year from his death to his normal age, and there were no special changes in work environment from 10 to 200,000 before his death or from 20,000 work hours before and after his death.

In addition, the court below is questionable as to whether the deceased's overwork and stress were caused by the heart disease, such as the cardio-Japanese disease, and whether the deceased's overwork and stress were caused by the heart disease, and if so, it is unclear whether the deceased's overwork and stress were directly caused by the symptoms of the acute death (free of the heart disease). However, even though it is unclear on the basis of the overwork and stress, it can be immediately caused by a new heart disease, or by the overwork and stress, and even if there is such possibility, it can be said that the above extension work alone could cause the heart disease or the immediate death. Thus, it should be examined as to whether the deceased's health might be caused by the death of the deceased, such as the body of the deceased. The court below's maximum purport should be examined, and it should be recognized that the body of the deceased's health might not be aggravated if it was found that the body of the deceased's after the death was under the influence of the body of the deceased.

For the purpose of being recognized as death due to an occupational reason as stipulated in Article 4 subparagraph 1(a) of the False Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the death in question was caused by the death of the deceased, and there is a proximate causal relation between the work and the accident. In this case, the causal relation between the work and the accident of the worker should be proved by the claimant. Thus, if the private person of the worker is unclear, it cannot be presumed to be caused by the death of the worker due to his work (see Supreme Court Decisions 98Du3303, Apr. 24, 1998; 97Nu16459, Apr. 23, 199). The court below erred by misapprehending such legal principles, which led to failure to exhaust all necessary deliberation on the cause, extension, and the causal relation between the death of the deceased, and the death. Accordingly, the allegation in the grounds of appeal

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jae- Jae (Presiding Justice)