(a) Location and degree of proof of the causal relationship between work, disease or death in the course of occupational accident;

(b) The case holding that the act of death of an employee who was engaged in work with high risk of bombomb in carbon constitutes an occupational accident on the part of an employee who died of cerebral blood by high blood pressure;

A. The term “occupational accident” under Article 3(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to an accident caused by an employee’s occupational accident while performing his/her duties. Thus, in the event that an accident is caused by a disease or a disease, there is a proximate causal relation with the employee’s work and the causal relation between the disease or the death caused by the disease. However, the causal relation is not necessarily required to be proved by medical, natural, and scientific evidence, but it is not necessarily required to prove clearly, in light of all the circumstances, such as the worker’s health condition at the time of employment, whether there is a cause of the outbreak in the workplace, whether there is a cause of the outbreak in the workplace, the period of service at the workplace where there is the cause of the outbreak in the workplace, and whether there is the same kind of disease or the death caused by the accident in the same workplace.

(b) The case holding that the death of an employee who was engaged in the work with a high risk of bombomb in carbon constitutes an occupational accident on the part of an employee who died of cerebral blood by high blood pressure.

(a)Article 3(1)(a) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act; Article 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act ;

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jae-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Plaintiff 1 and 3 others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee)

Attorney Park Young-chul, Counsel for the head of the Gu's local labor office

Administrator of the Korea Development Bank in relation to the Corporation of Korea;

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu9731 delivered on March 19, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

The term "occupational accident" in Article 3 (1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to an accident caused by an employee's occupational accident while performing his/her duties. If the accident is caused by a disease or a disease, there is a proximate causal relation with the worker's duties and in this case, the causal relation with the worker's occupational disease or the causal relation between the disease or death caused by the disease must be proved by the claimant. However, such causal relation is not necessarily required to be proved by medical and natural science, but it is not necessarily necessary to prove clearly. Considering all the circumstances such as the worker's health condition at the time of employment, whether there is a cause of the outbreak in the workplace, whether there is a cause of the outbreak in the workplace, the period of service at the workplace where there is the cause of the outbreak in the workplace, whether there is another worker's same kind of disease or death caused by the disease (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu1022 delivered on May 12, 1992).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the non-party who died from cerebral typhism due to sulphism was found to have no health disorder, such as blood pressure at the time of entry into the non-party 1, 1977, and was engaged in 2 and work with high risk of ulphal typhism for about six years until the above company was withdrawn, and there was a case where the non-party was found to be addicted to typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhism in light of the above legal principles as to typhal typhal typhalphal typhalphal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal.

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-ju (Presiding Justice)