The case holding that the death of a person suffering from lebal disease is not a death due to an official disease.

In a case where a person who was a direct death of a public official who died while in office is a sacrosis, pulmonary fladism, and the person who was the first death of a sacrife is a acute sacrosis, the cause of the outbreak has not yet been revealed in modern medical science, and there is no evidence to prove that the sacrife rapidly aggravated the cause of the outbreak, shortens the life of a person who was a sacrife, or causes a merger of a person who was a sacrife, etc., then even if the deceased’s sacrifeed under the poor environment in the course of performing his duties, it cannot be concluded that the sacrife caused the death of a person who was a s

Article 61 of the Public Officials Pension Act

Plaintiff 1 and two others

Public Official Pension Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 88Gu3736 delivered on February 21, 1989

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. We examine Plaintiff 1’s grounds of appeal.

The disease as referred to in Article 61 of the Public Officials Pension Act refers to a disease that occurs during the performance of official duties and has a causal relationship between the disease and the official duties. However, even if the main cause of the disease is not directly related to the official duties, it constitutes a disease caused or aggravated as a result of the overlap with the main cause of the disease, and which is not to make it impossible at all to maintain normal work at ordinary times, and it also includes, inter alia, an excessive cause of the disease, which is beyond the degree of natural deterioration of the disease (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 75Nu148, Oct. 7, 1975). However, according to the facts established by the court below, it is reasonable that the cause of the death of the deceased cannot be easily determined as the cause of the death of the deceased, such as pulmonary fladism, flady, and flady and flady, and that it cannot be determined as the cause of death or aggravation of the disease, such as an environmental disease.

Therefore, there is no reason to criticize the judgment of the court below from the opposite position.

2. According to the records, the plaintiff 1's claim was dismissed at the court below, and the lawsuit of the plaintiff 2 and the plaintiff 3 was dismissed. The plaintiff 1 and the legal representative of the plaintiff 2 and the same plaintiff 3 received the notification of the receipt of the notification of the receipt of the case on April 7, 1989, and submitted the appellate brief on the dismissal judgment in his name, but did not submit the appellate brief on the dismissed judgment of the plaintiff 2 and the same plaintiff 3, and there was no indication of the grounds for appeal in the petition of appeal.

3. Therefore, all appeals are 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 judges.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)