[1] Location and degree of proof of causation between official duties and the occurrence of disease, which is the requirement for the payment of bereaved family's compensation under Article 61 (1) of the Public Officials Pension Act / Whether there is a proximate causal relation between official duties and death (affirmative with qualification) and matters to be considered for the recognition of proximate causal relation between official duties and death

[2] The case holding that a proximate causal relation between the deceased's work and the deceased's death may be acknowledged in a case where Gap, who was employed as the same commander of the reserve forces, committed suicide after being hospitalized in the process of performing new duties with the head of a region group, complaining of symptoms such as stress and WIG disorder caused by his work, and receiving treatment under the diagnosis of a serious depression, e.g., depression, etc., and Gap's wife claimed compensation for bereaved family, but the Government Official Pension Service rejected payment on the ground that it cannot be recognized as a disaster

[1] The “public disease” which is the requirement for the payment of bereaved family’s compensation under Article 61(1) of the Public Officials Pension Act refers to a disease caused by official duties during the performance of official duties. As such, there is a causal relationship between a public official’s disease and the occurrence of a disease, and the causal relationship must be proved by the assertion of the causal relationship. However, in a case where a causal relationship is acknowledged from a normative point of view, the causal relationship does not necessarily have to be explicitly proved in medical and natural science, and where there is proof of proximate causal relationship. In a case where a public official died of a suicide, the disease is caused or aggravated due to the occurrence of a disease on official duties, or overwork or stress in the main cause of a disease, and it can be presumed that such disease was caused a suicide under such circumstances as lack of normal perception, ability to choose action, mental control, or considerable decrease in the ability to make reasonable judgment, there is a proximate causal relationship between the public official and the death. In order to acknowledge a proximate causal relationship, comprehensive consideration should be given to the degree of suicide, symptoms, period of illness, possibility, possibility, possibility of recovery, physical and psychological situation surrounding suicide.

[2] The case holding that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles on the ground that Gap's activities and death could be found in proximate causal relation to Gap's activities, in light of the following: (a) Gap, who worked as the same commander of the reserve forces, committed suicide in the course of performing new duties as a superior commander; (b) complaining of symptoms such as stress and WIG disorder, etc. caused by his work; (c) Eul's wife claimed compensation for bereaved family; (d) although Eul requested compensation for bereaved family members due to a disaster caused by official duties, the Public Official Pension Service could not be recognized as a disaster; and (e) Gap determined as a person to be appointed as a regional commander following the reorganization of the reserve forces; and (e) he prepared to create regional units; and (e) as a regional commander of a higher class than the former one, he was subject to serious occupational stress and mental distress, which were much expanded than the former one; and (e) in light of the fact that Gap was suffering from serious occupational stress and mental pain before his suicide; and (e) there was sufficient causal relation between Gap's affairs and death.

[1] Article 61 (1) of the Public Officials Pension Act / [2] Article 61 (1) of the Public Officials Pension Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 99Du331 Decided June 8, 1999 (Gong1999Ha, 1423), Supreme Court Decision 2007Du2029 Decided March 13, 2008, Supreme Court Decision 201Du3944 Decided June 9, 201

Plaintiff (Attorney Jin-hun, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Government Employees Pension Service

Seoul High Court Decision 2011Nu22794 decided December 9, 2011

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The “public disease” which is a requirement for the payment of bereaved family’s compensation under Article 61(1) of the Public Officials Pension Act refers to a disease caused by the official duty during the performance of the official duty. As such, there is a causal relationship between the occurrence of the disease and the official duty, and the causal relationship must be proved by the assertion of such causal relationship: Provided, That such causal relationship does not necessarily have to be proved clearly in medical and natural science, and where proximate causal relationship is acknowledged from normative perspective, there is proof. In a case where a public official dies due to a suicide, the disease is caused or aggravated due to the occurrence of the disease on official duty, or the disorder in the line of duty is overlapped with the main cause of the disease, and it can be inferred that such disease is caused a suicide under the circumstances where the normal perception ability, ability to choose action, mental suppression ability, or considerable decrease in the ability to make reasonable judgment, there is a proximate causal relationship between the official duty and the death. In addition, for the recognition of such proximate causal relationship, comprehensive consideration should be given to the degree, symptoms, period, recovery period, age, physical and mental condition 191.

2. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following facts.

A. From January 1, 200, the deceased non-party, who is the husband of the plaintiff, was appointed to work as the head of the unit of the reserve forces. On November 1, 2009, the deceased was determined as the person to be appointed as the head of the regional unit of the district unit of the Si/Eup/Myeon/Dong reserve forces newly organized for the purpose of efficient control and operation of the organization of the reserve forces under the order of November 1, 2009, and carried out the tasks such as securing regional substitute offices and preparing the establishment of regional units. From January 1, 2010, the deceased was performing new tasks as the head of the regional unit. In the process, the deceased had a high direction so that it was difficult for him to perform his duties, while having experienced various difficulties and had considerable stress.

B. In comparison with the duties of the commander of the reserve forces who was originally in charge of the deceased, the scope of the duties of the newly assigned regional commander increased by more than a number of times the number of persons subject to the management. The scope of the duties was also expanded from the Eup/Myeon/Dong in charge to the entire Si of Gunsan, and the number of the subordinate employees directly managed was much increased. From November 1, 2009 to April 30, 201, the deceased, who was determined to be the person to be designated as the regional commander due to the increased work, performed regional patrol, training preparation, and full-time visit to the hospital, etc. from November 1, 2009 to April 30, 2010 when the hospital started hospitalized treatment.

C. From April 2001 to November 2003, the Deceased was treated as a re-comploitivity disorder (domination disorder). However, on or around December 2009, the deceased was determined as the prospective recipient of the regional ledger and was scheduled to create a regional unit, and began to receive treatment again.

D. On April 30, 2010, the Deceased complained of symptoms, such as stress and WIG disorder, etc. caused by work at the hospital, and was diagnosed with severe depression without any symptoms of mental illness, a mixture of depression, and a hospital’s disease. The Deceased complained of the following: (a) there was no person to substitute his/her work while hospitalized in the hospital and being treated; and (b) there was no person who is being able to treat his/her work; and (c) there was a fear of committing a crime against his/her failure to treat his

E. On May 11, 2010, the Deceased, who was hospitalized, told his family members to “at the time of his death, her son and her dependent,” and at around 14:30, the Deceased told that he would not refuse to live more than her.” From around 15:10 to around 19:25, the Deceased provided meals with her family members in the sick room and took care of the surrounding areas of the hospital. At around 19:35, the Deceased was killed on the 513rd floor from the windows inside the hospital’s fifth floor to the 1st floor.

F. According to the patient opinion prepared by the head of the hospital and the fact-finding on the above hospital, the deceased hospitalized in the police officer on December 2009 due to stress arising from work-related stress, portraits, depressions, and surface disorders, etc., and symptoms such as excessive coercion of work, lack of self-esteem, and apprehensions continue to exist during the hospital treatment, and suicide appears to have been committed while there is difficulty in judgment and impulse control due to being accompanied by severe depression and apprehensions, and the record of medical records of the deceased stated that there was no person to act on behalf of the deceased, and there was a fear of committing a crime about the deceased's failure to deal with his/her work. Moreover, there is no evidence to deem that the deceased was hospitalized in the hospital or committed suicide due to the disease of this case due to any other factors than his/her duties.

3. The following circumstances revealed by these factual relations, namely, from November 2009, the deceased was determined as the person to be appointed as the head of the Si/Gun/Gu regional commander following the reorganization of the reserve forces, and prepared to establish regional units upon receiving cooperation, etc. from the Si/Gun mountain. From January 201, it appears that the deceased was suffering from extreme occupational stress and mental pain while performing excessive tasks, such as overtime work, etc., much more expanded target areas and number of people than the previous units, as the commander of the Dong group, and it appears that the deceased would have been suffering from severe mental distress and mental pain. In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, there is no evidence to deem that the symptoms were repeated due to reasons other than his/her duties, and there is no possibility that the deceased might have suffered from suicide because of considerable stress and physical disorder in his/her workplace on April 30, 2010, and there is no possibility that the deceased might have suffered considerable causal causal relation between his/her occupational stress and mental disorder before his/her death.

Nevertheless, the court below rejected causation between the deceased's death and his work on the ground that there are other circumstances where the deceased's symptoms were repeated, and that the deceased was hospitalized in the hospital due to the mental illness in this case and received treatment, and the reasons and motive leading up to suicide. The mental illness in this case occurred only due to chronological characteristics of the deceased, etc., and it cannot be deemed that the deceased's suicide was caused due to excessive occupational stress, or that the normal behavior selection capacity was considerably deteriorated. Thus, the deceased's excessive stress on duty and the incidental depression to the degree that it cannot be deemed that the deceased's death and work did not lead to suicide without free will due to depression. In so determining, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on causation between occupational accidents and death in the line of duty, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

4. 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 Ko Young-han (Presiding Justice)