[1] Whether an existing disease, which is not directly related to the business, becomes worse due to an accident, etc. that occurred in connection with the business, or the symptoms revealed only, constitutes an occupational accident, and the burden of proof as to the causal relation and the degree of proof

[2] Standard for determining whether or not to pay medical care benefits under the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

[3] The case holding that it is reasonable to view that the worker's 4-5 emergency escape certificate was an occupational accident on the ground that the 19-5 emergency exit certificate was carried out by the contact business that imposes a burden on the essential part for a long time of 19 years and 5 months, and the transformation and escape from the essential part was done rapidly compared to normal persons, and the degree of aggravation was deepened due to the fall accident while on duty

[1] Article 4 subparagraph 1 (see current Article 5 subparagraph 1) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8373, Apr. 11, 2007) / [2] Article 37 (see current Article 40) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8373, Apr. 11, 2007) / [3] Article 4 subparagraph 1 (see current Article 5 (1)) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8373, Apr. 11, 2007)

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 99Du10360 delivered on December 10, 1999 (Gong2000Sang, 210) Supreme Court Decision 99Du11646 delivered on March 10, 200, Supreme Court Decision 2000Du1607 Delivered on June 9, 200

Plaintiff

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Busan High Court Decision 2008Nu1085 decided April 3, 2009

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The term "occupational accident" under the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8373, Apr. 11, 2007; hereinafter "the Act") refers to an occupational accident caused by a worker's performance of his/her duties. As such, there should be a causal relationship between the occupational accident and the disaster. However, even if the accident is an existing disease not directly related to his/her duties, if it becomes worse or there is only its symptoms due to an accident that occurred in connection with his/her duties, the causal relationship between his/her duties shall be deemed to exist, and if the aggravated part becomes worse or its symptoms are not proved before its deterioration or aggravation, the causal relationship shall be treated as occupational accident until its symptoms are fixed, and the causal relationship shall not be clearly proved by medical and natural science, but it shall be proved that there is no sufficient causal relationship between the worker's health condition at the time of his/her employment, the circumstance of the outbreak, the content of the disease, and the progress of treatment, etc., and it shall be deemed that it can be proved that there is no more than 90 medical benefits for occupational injury than 90.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below and evidence, the plaintiff was frequently employed by the non-party 1 corporation on March 198, and was placed at the panel assembly book, and was engaged in 10 hours per day on August 25, 2006 on an average of 10 hours per day until August 25, 2006. There are many cases where the above work was conducted in unstable attitude or fixed place in light of the characteristics of the work, and the plaintiff was affected by the cable above 1m of the first instance court's 20th floor after being exposed to the first instance court's 4th of the accident, and was affected by the non-party 2's 5th of the accident scene's 4th of the first instance court's 6th of the first instance court's 2nd of the accident scene after being exposed to the non-party 1's 5th of the first instance court's 2nd of the accident scene's 5th of the accident scene.

According to the above legal principles and facts, even though the plaintiff's escape from the side of the injury of this case does not have any aspect that can be seen as arising from the change of satise, such as the defendant's advisory opinion, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff's injury of this case is an occupational accident in this case where the plaintiff's injury of this case, which had been carrying out satisfing operations imposing a burden on the satise for a long time of 19 years and 5 months due to such duties, has deepened the degree of aggravation due to the shock caused by the accident of this case while the change of the satisfe and the escape from the satisfe is being done rapidly compared to normal, and the degree of aggravation has deepened due to the shock caused by the accident of this case. Thus, it is sufficient to view the disease of this case as an occupational

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the injury of this case did not constitute an occupational accident with a proximate causal relation to the plaintiff's business, on the ground that it was difficult to view that the injury of this case was caused by the accident of this case or that it was rapidly aggravated beyond natural progress. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on occupational accident, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, 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 Cha Han-sung (Presiding Justice)