[1] The standard for determining whether there exists a proximate causal relation between work and disease or death in a case where worker's overwork or stress overlaps with the main cause of the disease and causes or deteriorates the disease

[2] The scope of work that needs to be taken into consideration when determining whether a worker who moved and worked for a number of construction sites dies during work and whether such death constitutes an occupational accident

[3] The case holding that in case where an employee who had worked as a steel-frame assembly hole at the site of the dam construction works and died of cerebrovascular and cerebral typhy in the nearby accommodation in the field, the duty performed at the other site prior to death shall be determined as data for determination of all the duties performed at the other site, and where an employee who had an existing disease, such as blood pressure, etc. under the rapidly changed work environment bears a substantial burden on the body of the employee, such as the night-time assembly work at the tunnel construction site, and stress, such as blood pressure, aggravated the existing disease due to the aggravation of the existing disease at a natural speed above the natural

[1] Article 4 subparagraph 1 (see current Article 5 subparagraph 1) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8373, Apr. 11, 2007) / [2] Article 4 subparagraph 1 (see current Article 5 subparagraph 1) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8373, Apr. 11, 2007) / [3] Article 4 subparagraph 1 (see current Article 5 subparagraph 1) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8373, Apr. 11, 2007)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2006Du17956 Decided February 28, 2008, Supreme Court Decision 2009Du164 Decided March 26, 2009 / [2] Supreme Court Decision 91Nu10466 Decided May 12, 1992 (Gong192, 187), Supreme Court Decision 97Nu16459 Decided April 23, 199 (Gong199Sang, 1061)

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Jong-ro, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 2008Nu27812 decided March 26, 2009

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The term "occupational accident" under Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8373 of Apr. 11, 2007) refers to an occupational disease caused by the worker's occupational injury during his/her performance of his/her duties. Thus, there is a causal relationship between the occupational and the disease caused by death. However, even if the main cause of the disease is not directly related to the performance of his/her duties and there is no direct relation to the disease, if at least the occupationalro or stress overlaps with the main cause of the disease and causes or deteriorates the disease, it shall be deemed that there exists a causal relationship between the occupational and the disease. Furthermore, the causal relationship is not necessarily proved clearly by medical and natural science, but if it is proved that there is a proximate causal relationship between the occupational and the disease in consideration of all the circumstances, it shall be deemed that it is included in the case where the basic disease or existing disease which can normally be caused by excessive occupational injury and has aggravated rapidly beyond the natural speed. In such case, the causal relationship between the occupational and death should be determined based on the average worker's health and physical conditions.

Furthermore, in a case where the content of the road is difficult for an ordinary person to find, and it is found that there was a danger of death or physical injury to him/her, it would be presumed that he/she died of occupational and physical factors, unless there are special circumstances to deem that the cause of death was revealed differently, it conforms to the empirical and logical rules (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du164, Mar. 26, 2009, etc.).

Meanwhile, in determining whether the death of the deceased constitutes occupational accident in cases where a worker who had worked for moving several construction sites dies during the work, all of the above construction works must include not only the work performed at the workplace at the time of the death of the deceased, but also the work performed at the workplace prior to the death and be subject to determination (see Supreme Court Decisions 91Nu10466 delivered on May 12, 1992; 97Nu16459 delivered on April 23, 199, etc.).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that it is difficult to see that the cerebral cerebral typosis was born due to stress arising from occupational or rapid changes in the working environment, in light of the fact that the deceased non-party was employed at the construction site of this case and did not work for more than 4 hours, and that the non-party is a skilled steel-frame assembly worker who worked at the construction site for about 30 years.

However, such determination by the court below is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below and the records reveal: ① The non-party, who was at the construction site of Samsung C&T Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “T&T”) as the original contractor for the three-month period prior to the construction of apartment complexes located in the Hanyang-dong, the government from April 2006 to May 15, 2006, at the site of construction of the Hanyang-gu Han River Water Supply System in the Hanyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, the Han River Water Water Supply System, from May 17, 2006, at the construction site of the Han River Water Supply System; ② The non-party, who was at the construction site of Samsung C&T, was not at the construction site of this case, and was at the construction site of this case, at the construction site of this case, at the time of the construction site of this case, at a high level of 10 meters away from the entrance of the construction site of this case.

Meanwhile, Article 9(1) of the Act on the Collection of Insurance Premiums, etc. for Employment Insurance and Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance provides that “If a business prescribed by the Presidential Decree, such as construction business, is conducted through several contracts, the original contractor shall be deemed as a business owner subject to the application of this Act.”

In light of the above legal principles and the above circumstances, since the above construction work of Samsung C&T appears to be subject to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, in determining whether the death of the non-party constitutes an occupational accident, it shall include not only the work performed several hours at the construction site of this case, but also the work performed at the Greendong apartment construction site and the original clean water purification facility construction site where the non-party died. Even if the existing workers who worked within the tunnel do not have excessive work, it is reasonable to deem that the non-party, who has suffered from an existing disease such as high blood pressure, is an excessive work imposing a significant burden on the body of the non-party newly launched, and there is no special circumstance to deem that the death of the non-party was caused otherwise than the night work in the tunnel, through the result of autopsy and medical treatment record, etc., and there is no need to find that there is any special circumstance to deem that the death of the non-party rapidly changed work environment, and that the non-party’s death would have aggravated the non-party’s death beyond the existing stress and stress.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the death of the non-party does not constitute an occupational accident on the ground that the working environment of the previous business establishment and the duty of the non-party performed by the non-party is only four hours at the construction site of this case without any deliberation. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on occupational accidents, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)