The case holding that even if it cannot be determined that the plaintiff's two copies, lessons, telegraph reduction, etc., who are taxi drivers, were the only cause of inhalement of LPgas as LPG addiction symptoms, it shall be viewed as occupational accident with proximate causal relation to the business.

The case holding that even though it cannot be determined that the Plaintiff’s two copies, lessons, and telegraph reduction, etc., which are taxi drivers, were the only cause for the inhalement of the LP gas, they should not be determined that the Plaintiff’s two copies, lessons, and telegraph reduction, etc., were caused by the only cause for the inhalement of the LP gas, at least physical, mental, or overwork, and high blood pressure symptoms, which are basic diseases, were caused by a long time, or even if not, they should be viewed as an occupational accident where there is a proximate causal relation with the work.

Article 3 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

Supreme Court Decision 91Nu476 delivered on April 12, 1991 (Gong1991, 1391) 91Nu4751 delivered on October 22, 1991 (Gong1991, 2847) 91Nu3727 delivered on November 8, 191 (Gong192, 131)

Plaintiff 1 and one other

The Commissioner of Busan Regional Labor Administration

Busan High Court Decision 90Gu1809 delivered on December 27, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff 1 was an operator of the instant taxi for 10 years, which had been aware of the fact that the Plaintiff 1 had been using the Plaintiff’s gas 1’s disease for 10 years, and that the Plaintiff 1 had been using the said gas 1 for 10 years, and that the Plaintiff 1 had been using the said gas 1 for 10 years, and that the Plaintiff 2 had no mental pressure for 10 years, and that the Plaintiff 1 had no mental pressure for 19 years, for which the Plaintiff 2 had no mental pressure for 19 years; (b) the Plaintiff 2 had no mental pressure for 19 years; (c) the Plaintiff 1 had no mental pressure for 19 years; and (d) the Plaintiff 2 had no mental pressure for 10 years, for which the Plaintiff 1 had no mental pressure for 10 years since then on the 25th day of the same month; and (d) the Plaintiff 1 had no mental pressure for 18 years.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 3 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act due to the violation of the rules of evidence, or the misconception of facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence

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 Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)