In the event that the main cause of the disease is not directly related to the work but the overwork or stress overlaps with the main cause of the disease and causes or worsens the disease, whether it constitutes "occupational accident" under Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (affirmative), and the degree of proof necessary to recognize the proximate causal relation between the work and the disease, and the standard for determining whether there exists such causal relation

Article 4 subparag. 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act; Articles 202 and 288 of the Civil Procedure Act; Articles 8(2) and 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [Burden of proof]

Supreme Court Decision 99Du11424 delivered on May 12, 2000 (Gong2000Ha, 1431 delivered on September 22, 2000), Supreme Court Decision 2000Du4538 Delivered on July 27, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 190)

Public Reder (Law Firm Han River, Attorneys Go Chang-su et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 2002Nu18267 Delivered on October 10, 2003

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

The term "occupational accident" under Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to a 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 death. However, even though the main cause of the disease is not directly related to the performance of his/her duties, if the occupational work or stress overlaps with the main cause of the disease and causes the disease, at least there is a causal relationship between it. The causal relationship does not necessarily have to be proved clearly in medical and natural science, but it is presumed that there is a proximate causal relationship between the occupational work and the disease when considering all the circumstances, and it is also proved that there is a proximate causal relationship between the occupational work and the disease. Further, the 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, and the causal relationship between the occupational work and the death or death should be determined based on the health and physical conditions of the worker concerned, not on an average person (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du4538, Jul. 27, 2001).

After recognizing the facts as stated in its adopted evidence, the court below acknowledged that the deceased did not work at night and on holidays, from around March 2001, and dealt with the deceased's business and labor work due to retirement and the injury of the business owner. In particular, with the rapid increase in the work burden, the mental and physical skin accumulated due to death, and the high blood pressure and cardiopulmonary fluorial stress were known as the main person who caused the death of the deceased. The court below determined that the deceased's death was caused by an occupational stress or mental stress, and that the deceased's death was presumed to have been caused by the death of the deceased, and that there was no significant causal relation between the deceased's death and mental stress or physical stress, and that there was no significant causal relation between the deceased's death and the mental stress or mental stress, and thus, the judgment of the court below is justified in light of the above legal principles and records.

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 Yoon Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)