[1] The degree of proof of causation in occupational accidents under Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

[2] The case holding that there is room for recognizing causation between occupational department or drinking and death in case where an employee infected with non-patchitis before his/her membership died of liver cancer while in office

[1] The term "occupational accident" under Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to an occupational disease caused by the worker's occupational injury while performing his/her duties. Thus, there is a causal relationship between the occupational and the disease caused by the death. However, even though the main cause of the disease was not directly related to the performance of his/her duties, if the occupational or stress overlaps with the main cause of the disease and causes or worsens the disease, at least there is a causal relationship between the occupational or natural science. The causal relationship does not necessarily have to be proved clearly by medical and natural science, but it is presumed that there is a proximate causal relationship between the occupational and the disease when considering all the circumstances, and it shall also be included where there is proof even if there is a basic or existing disease which can normally perform his/her duties in ordinary, which is caused by the excessive performance of his/her duties and which becomes worse rapidly above the natural progress.

[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below which held that an occupational accident does not constitute an occupational accident on the ground that there is room to view that the worker who had been infected with non-maritis before his membership died of liver cancer while serving as the chief of the general affairs department, and that the frequent drinking of over-the-job and occupational disease has aggravated rapidly beyond the natural running speed, and thus, it does not constitute an occupational accident

[1] Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act / [2] Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 97Nu10 delivered on May 28, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 1899) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 93Nu9408 delivered on October 12, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 3101), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu7935 delivered on March 14, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1635 delivered on September 10, 1996) (Gong196Nu7530 delivered on August 29, 197)

Plaintiff

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 97Gu33753 delivered on June 12, 1998

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In light of the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged facts as follows. The non-party 1, who was the husband of the plaintiff, was infected with non-party 1, before the non-party 1 entered ○○○○ corporation (hereinafter below, the non-party 1 was infected with non-party 1). The non-party 1, who was diagnosed with liver cancer and died rapidly after being diagnosed with liver cancer, and died, and the non-party 1 did not treat liver cancer, the survival rate for six months is 37.5%, and the one year survival rate for one year is 16.6%. The non-party 1 did not treat liver, while the overwork or stress may temporarily deteriorate functions. However, considering the above facts, there is no medical evidence as to the causes and aggravation of liver and liver cancer, and whether it is the cause of proceeding with liver cancer, it is difficult to view that there was a proximate causal causal relation between the previous month and the death of liver or liver.

The term "occupational accident" under Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to an occupational disease caused by the worker's occupational injury while performing his/her duties. Thus, there should be a causal relationship between the occupational and the disease caused by death. However, even though the main cause of the disease was not directly related to the performance of his/her duties, if the occupational or stress overlaps with the main cause of the disease and causes or worsens the disease, it should be deemed that there exists a causal relationship between the occupational or natural science. The causal relationship does not necessarily have to be proved clearly, but it is presumed that there is a proximate causal relationship between the occupational and the disease when considering all the circumstances, and it is also proved that there is a basic disease that can normally work at ordinary level or the existing disease has aggravated rapidly above the natural speed due to the excessive performance of his/her duties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Nu7530, Aug. 29, 199; 9Nu10, May 28, 1997).

However, as a result of the fact-finding on the head of △△ University Hospital (Records 137 pages) adopted by the lower court, the overwork and stress are likely to be part of the causes of non-presidential or liver cancer, but it is not well known that some of the causes of overwork and stress are not well known, and even if non-pactary hepatitiss can be performed by liver and liver cancer, it is not carried out as liver and liver cancer, but there is a possibility that overwork and stress may be aggravated by liver and liver cancer in the state of non-pactine infections.

According to this, even if the overwork or stress cannot be determined as an independent cause of liver or liver cancer, it can not be said that at least it constitutes a person who worsens non-presidential infection from liver or liver cancer.

In addition, according to the court below's findings, a long-term large volume of alcohol (tone, 2 Hobbes, 1 disease) can occur when they are continuously taken in, and the probability of the occurrence of liver cancer is high. The non-party 1 performed his duties as the head of the general affairs department of the non-party company, and the non-party 1 performed his duties as the head of the non-party company's office, for about 15 days in a month above the working hours set by the non-party company, he worked for more than 3 hours a day, and for about 3 and 4 days a week a week a week a week a week a week a week a week a week a week of drinking, and the volume of drinking was more than 2 children a week a week a week, and according to the records, the non-party 1 was frequently under influence of alcohol for customer management (record 127, 1599). Thus, the non-party 1 is likely to have deteriorated the deceased's natural disease beyond the above speed of drinking and the existing one.

Therefore, the court below should have further deliberated on the degree of occupational and stress inflicted on Nonparty 1, the time and quantity of drinking in relation to the work, and the influence that Nonparty 1 is already affected by non-presidential infections, especially on the possibility that non-presidential infections may deteriorate into liver cancer, etc.

Nevertheless, the court below's determination that there is no proximate causal relation between the death of Nonparty 1 and the business of Nonparty 1 is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to occupational accidents under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the appellant's assertion that caused this error is justified.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be 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.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)