[1] The case where there is a proximate causal relationship between work and death of an employee who died in a suicide act, and the matters to be considered to recognize a proximate causal relationship

[2] The case holding that in a case where unmarried female Gap, who worked as an employee of the production-based workers, suffered from injury during film stalking operations and received hospitalized treatment and surgery treatment by suffering from an accident with six fingers cut off on the knives day, and where he was diagnosed during the medical care treatment, such as "consulative disorder," and died on the rooftop of an apartment, the case holding that Gap's physical and mental disorder, etc. may be presumed to have been caused only by aggravation of her person due to stress to the degree that it is difficult to suffer from the injury in the course of treating the accident, and that there is sufficient room to acknowledge a proximate causal relation between Gap's work and death, on the grounds that it can be presumed that there is sufficient reason to acknowledge a proximate causal relation between Gap's work and death

[1] Article 37 (1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act / [2] Article 37 (1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2011Du3944 Decided June 9, 2011 (Supreme Court Decision 2011Du14692 Decided October 30, 2014

Plaintiff (Law Firm Southerndo, Attorneys Go Jae-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Gwangju High Court Decision 2016Nu3832 decided October 13, 2016

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The term “occupational accident” under Article 37(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to the injury, disease, physical disability, or death of an employee who was caused by his/her duties during the performance of his/her duties. As such, the causal relationship between his/her duties and the disaster ought to be proved. However, such causal relationship is not necessarily required to be proved by medical or natural science, and where proximate causal relationship is acknowledged from normative point of view, there should be proof. Therefore, in cases where a worker dies due to a suicide, the disease is caused or aggravated due to the occurrence of the disease, the occupational disorder, or stress overlaps with the main cause of the disease, and it can be presumed that such disease is caused suicide in such a situation as to make it impossible to expect reasonable judgment due to normal recognition or choice ability, mental suppression ability, or considerable decrease, there is a proximate causal relationship between his/her duties and death. In order to recognize such proximate causal relationship, comprehensive consideration should be given to the degree of suicide or symptoms after the illness of the person who committed suicide, general period of medical treatment, recovery, age, physical and psychological situation 101.

2. The reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court reveal the following facts.

A. On November 15, 1982, the deceased non-party 1 (hereinafter “the deceased”), who was employed by the non-party 2 corporation on November 12, 2007, as a production worker on November 13, 2007, suffered from the injury of the deceased non-party 1 (hereinafter “the accident in this case”), such as the injury of the deceased non-party 2,3 dives of 2,3 knife cut, cut off with 6 fingers on the knife (hereinafter “the accident in this case”), while working for the production worker after being employed for the non-party 2 corporation on November 15, 2007, such as film galing work at the above company film plant, and cut off with six fingers on the knife (hereinafter “the injury in this case”).

B. The Deceased’s disability grade is determined as follows: (a) he/she was under the instant accident and completed the medical treatment on February 13, 2009 to April 24, 2009; (b) from August 3, 2009 to August 25, 2009; (c) from November 3, 2009 to November 28, 2009; (d) he/she received four and three-time medical treatment from March 30, 2010 to April 20, 2010; and (d) the Deceased completed the medical treatment on September 15, 2010; and (d) the Defendant determined as the deceased’s disability grade as to the deceased’s “a person who was unable to use properly his/her fingers or fourth fingers among his/her inner fingers.”

On the other hand, around February 24, 2009, when the deceased applied for the first medical care benefits for the injury or disease to be approved by the Defendant, the first medical examination report stating that “the plaintiff is too difficult for the injury or disease to be caused by the death or injury of the death or injury of the death or injury, he knows about it, and appeal for pain.” According to the medical records, the deceased appeared to have raised multiple appeals against pains and apprehensions during the treatment period. Meanwhile, the medical records also state that “the same is addicted to the operation.”

C. On January 9, 2010, the Deceased was under medical care, and received the diagnosis of “contributative disorder” from January 18, 2010 to October 29, 2012, the Deceased was under medical care at ○○○○ Hospital to receive a mental and treatment for both dynamic disorder due to refund, net, highly advanced organs, and influences. From May 29, 2013 to March 19, 2014, the Deceased received medical treatment from the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ for the treatment of “fluoral disorder, sound illness, etc.”

D. On March 21, 2014, the Deceased died by marging from the ( Address omitted) apartment rooftop, which was residing around 11:30 on March 21, 2014.

E. It is generally known that the division-sex disorder is generally caused by various causes, and is in combination with biological, psychological, and social environmental factors. In the case of the bipolartic disorder, it is known that it is a genetic factor, but it is also a common case or environmental stress factor.

F. High school life records contain a statement that “the deceased’s behavior development status shall be faithful to the work assigned as early as possible, his own initiative shall be clearly observed, and the rules shall be well observed,” and for the third year, it is written that “the third year is comfortable,” and that it has been opened for three years at high school.

G. The Deceased did not have any mental problem during his tenure of office until the occurrence of the instant accident, and there was no absence of unauthorized absence from office.

H. Before the instant accident occurred, the Deceased did not have any record of diagnosis or treatment due to a mental disease, and there is no evidence to recognize that there was a person with mental capacity among his family members.

3. We examine these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier.

A. In full view of the following circumstances, it may be ratified that the Deceased was under difficult stress in the course of the occurrence of the instant accident and the treatment of injury and disease with the approval of the weather.

(1) At the time of the instant accident, the Deceased, as an unmarried woman of 26 years old age at the time of the instant accident, was involved in an accident cutting six fingers on the knives day, and the fact that the Deceased was involved in such an accident seems to have suffered a considerable mental shock.

(2) As for the period of hospitalization up to 120 days, the deceased appears to have failed to live a normal life during the period of treatment before receiving a diagnosis of both polar disorder, and appears to have raised many appeals against pain and apprehensions during the said period. Furthermore, even after the completion of the medical treatment, some obstacles have left after the completion of the medical treatment.

B. Meanwhile, it can be presumed that the Plaintiff’s above disease can be caused by psychological factors, taking full account of the following: (a) the Deceased was diagnosed with pulmatic disorder while receiving medical treatment for the injury approved during the period of medical treatment for the injury; (b) the Deceased appears to have no stress factors other than the stress arising in the instant accident and the process of treating the injury; and (c) the Deceased did not have any history of diagnosis or treatment for the mental disease before the instant accident occurred; and (d) there was no person suffering from, or is currently suffering from, the previous mental disease even among his family members; and (e) the Plaintiff’s disease can be presumed to have been aggravated only due to stress to the extent that it is difficult to detect the occurrence of the instant accident and the process of treating the injury approved during the period of medical treatment for the injury.

C. Furthermore, considering the circumstances acknowledged earlier, even if there were no other special reasons for the deceased to choose suicide, it can be inferred that the deceased’s normal perception ability, ability to choose action, and mental suppression power significantly drops due to a divesive disorder or a divesysysysysysysysy, thereby resulting in suicide. Therefore, there is sufficient room to acknowledge a proximate causal relationship between the deceased’s work and the death.

4. Nevertheless, the lower court denied the proximate causal relationship between the deceased’s death and his duties on account of the following circumstances: (a) without closely examining the degree of stress suffered by the deceased after the instant accident, the developments leading up to the occurrence of the instant injury, etc.; and (b) there is no evidence to deem the deceased to have been affected by excessive mental stress or extreme psychological pressure to the extent that the deceased would be exposed to depression, fear, heat humping, hysium, anti-humanity, etc. Accordingly, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on proximate causal relationship between the deceased’s death and the death in occupational accidents, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation contained in the grounds of appeal

5. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Shin (Presiding Justice)