[1] The legal nature of Article 15 of the Enforcement Rule of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, which provides the requirements for recognition of additional medical care (working rules)

[2] The requirements for additional medical care

[3] The meaning of proximate causal relation in medical science as a requirement for additional medical care, and the method and degree of proof

[1] Article 15 of the Enforcement Rule of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by the Labor Ministry Ordinance No. 97 of Apr. 29, 1995) provides for the requirements for recognition of additional medical care. However, this is not based on superior laws in legislative form. Considering its nature and content, it is merely a provision of internal administrative rules on medical care management under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by the Act No. 4826 of Dec. 22, 1994). Thus, it has no effect to externally bind the court or the general public. Thus, the legality of the non-approval of additional medical care should be determined depending on whether it still conforms to the purport of Article 40 (Article 9-3 of the former Act) of the same Act.

[2] The requirements for the additional medical care do not meet the requirements for the additional medical care, except that the medical care is provided after the completion of the medical care. Thus, it is sufficient to view that there is a medical opinion that there is a proximate causal relationship between the first injury and the injury and the injury and the injury and the injury and the injury and the injury and the injury and the injury and the injury and the injury and the injury and the injury and injury at the time of the completion of the medical care, and that the medical treatment can be expected by the aggravation of the symptoms and the additional medical care

[3] The medical proximate causal relationship as a requirement for additional medical care refers to not only a condition relationship with respect to the injury or disease for which the first injury or disease applied for medical care, but also a relatively significant cause in light of the empirical rule, and the method and degree of proof are not necessarily required to be proved by direct evidence, but also must be proved by indirect facts based on the health and physical condition of the pertinent worker. However, a proximate causal relationship cannot be acknowledged merely because the first injury or disease is likely to occur normally without this degree, but it cannot be found immediately because the condition causal relationship is not clearly denied medically.

[1] Article 40 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Article 15 of the Enforcement Rule of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act / [2] Article 40 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Article 15 of the Enforcement Rule of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act / [3] Article 40 of the Industrial Accident Compensation

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Nu12326 delivered on September 15, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3418) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 91Nu5433 delivered on September 10, 1991 (Gong1991, 2548), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu9408 delivered on October 12, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 3101), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu9030 delivered on December 13, 1994 (Gong195Sang, 511)

Gangwon-do District Court Decision 201Na1448 delivered on June 2, 201

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 96Gu893 delivered on November 14, 1996

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

Article 15 of the Enforcement Rule of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Labor No. 97 of April 29, 1995) provides for the requirements for the recognition of additional medical care. However, this provision does not provide the basis for superior Acts and subordinate statutes in its legislative form. From its nature and content, it merely provides internal business rules for the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 4826 of December 22, 1994) with respect to the management of medical care under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by the Act No. 4826 of December 22, 1994) and it is not externally binding upon the court or the general public. Thus, the legality of non-approval of additional medical care should be determined based on whether it still conforms to the purpose of Article 40 (Article 9-3 of the former Act) of the same Act, and it is not necessarily the first proximate causal relation between the requirements for additional medical care and the medical treatment application for which there is no possibility of proximate causal causal relation with the medical treatment.

The court below, in the same purport, after the plaintiff suffered from a disaster on July 20, 193, concluded medical treatment for the escape certificate of the 4-5th memorial signboard, which was originally wounded on June 30, 1994, and received disability benefits after finishing medical treatment for the escape certificate of the 4-5th memorial signboard, which was the first injury and disease on June 30, 1994. In other words, on June 23, 1995, the court below applied for additional medical care and filed an additional medical care for the computerization of the 5th century with the first injury and the first injury and disease in the first injury and injury and injury and injury and injury and injury and caused by the misunderstanding of legal principles or the misunderstanding of facts or the misunderstanding of facts against the rules of evidence as pointed out in the grounds for appeal.

On the second ground for appeal

Although the judgment of the court below did not disclose in detail the reasons for the judgment, it is judged whether the new additional medical care requirements are met, centering on the certificate of escape from the 5th century-1000s, which is an injury or disease, which is an initial injury or disease, based on the premise that the escape from the 4-5th century, which is the first injury or disease, has not been aggravated or expanded in other parts. This decision is just in the outcome of the judgment, and there is no error of incomplete deliberation that affected the results of the judgment or of misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence. There is no reason

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)