The case holding that the "occupational accident" under Article 3 (1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act is applicable to a case where an employee who had been suffering from an ornamental beer disease dies of his/her course of performing his/her duties due to excessive work, etc.

The term "occupational accident" in Article 3 (1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to an accident, such as injury, disease, physical disability, death, etc. caused by the worker's occupational performance of his/her duties, and there is a causal relationship between his/her duties and the disaster. Although there was a basic disease or an existing disease to the extent that the worker is able to normally work in his/her workplace, and even if the disease was not directly related to his/her duties, the disease was rapidly aggravated or new disease was caused due to occupational excess, or the death was caused, there is a causal relationship. Accordingly, it shall be deemed that the causal relationship exists in the case of his/her death. In the case of his/her death as a result, the rapid aggravation of the disease caused by the death of the worker due to his/her occupational excess, which was caused by the death of the deceased due to his/her occupational excess.

Article 3(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Nu455 delivered on December 27, 1983 (Gong1984,266) 90Nu2727 delivered on September 25, 1990 (190,2185) 90Nu3690 Delivered on November 13, 1990 (Gong191,08)

Attorney Kang-jin et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

The head of the Seocheon Regional Labor Office

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu575 delivered on September 5, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to Paragraph 1 of Article 3 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, it means a disaster, such as an injury, disease, or death caused by the death of the worker at the 3rd floor of the above 4th floor, which caused the death of the above 4th floor, and thus, there should be causation between the work and the disaster. Even if the disease was not directly related to the work, it should be deemed that the disease was rapidly aggravated or new due to the accident. (See, e.g., 82Nu45, Dec. 27, 198; 90Nu277, Sept. 25, 190) that caused the death of the worker at the 4th floor of the above 4th floor, which caused the death of the above 4th floor and the death of the above 5th floor, and that the construction of the apartment at the 4th floor, which caused the death of the worker at the 4th floor of the above 5th floor.

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 3 (1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and Article 54 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act as pointed out in the arguments, and therefore there is no ground

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.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)