In civil damages cases, by applying the legal principles that take into account the contribution to the expansion of damages, whether the causal relationship between the work and the accident under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act can be recognized at a rate (negative)

Articles 1, 5 subparag. 1, and 37 (see current Article 40) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8694, Dec. 14, 2007); Articles 396 and 763 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 93Da38826 Decided May 24, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 1793) Supreme Court Decision 2010Du5141 Decided August 19, 2010 (Gong2010Ha, 1827)

Plaintiff (Attorney Lee In-bok, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Daegu High Court Decision 2008Nu1901 Decided February 5, 2010

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

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. 8694 of Dec. 14, 2007; hereinafter "Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act") means an injury, disease, physical disability, or death of a worker who was caused by his/her duties while performing his/her duties, and there is a causal relationship between his/her duties and the disaster. Regarding such causal relationship, the causal relationship must be proved by his/her assertion. The method and degree of proof must not be clearly proved by direct evidence. However, it should be proved to the extent that proximate causal relationship between his/her duties and accidents can be inferred by indirect facts such as the health condition at the time of employment, existence of existing diseases, nature and environment of his/her duties, and whether another worker was transferred to the same kind of disease working at the same workplace (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du5451, Oct. 27, 2005).

On the other hand, since the industrial accident compensation insurance system under the Industrial Accident Insurance Act differs from the system that compensates for damages caused by tort and its purport or purpose, the principle of fault liability or the theory of comparative negligence is not applied to the liability for payment of benefits under the Industrial Accident Insurance Act, and in light of the legislative purport and purpose of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act and the living security nature of workers who have insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Insurance Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da38826, May 24, 1994), the causal relationship between the business and the disaster under the Industrial Accident Insurance Act cannot be recognized by applying mutatis mutandis the legal principles that consider the contribution to the expansion, etc. of damages in civil damage compensation cases.

For reasons indicated in its holding, the court below is just in light of the above legal principles and records that there is a lack of evidence to find that the plaintiff's injury or disease was caused by the accident in this case or aggravated due to natural progress, and that it is difficult to satisfe the plaintiff's injury or disease only with an appraisal opinion as pointed out therein. There is no error of law as otherwise alleged in

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 Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)