2016du43817 Revocation of revocation of the payment of bereaved family's benefits and funeral expenses.

A

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 2016Nu31687 Decided June 14, 2016

April 26, 2017

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The “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, if the causal relationship is not necessarily clearly proven in medical or natural science, and there is a proximate causal relationship from a normative point of view, it should be deemed that there is 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 the lack of normal perception, ability to choose action, mental suppression, or considerable decrease, a proximate causal relationship between his/her duties and the death. In order to acknowledge such proximate causal relationship, comprehensive consideration should be given to the degree of the disease or symptoms of the person who committed suicide, the period of medical treatment, recovery possibility, age, physical and psychological situation 101.

2. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court reveals the following facts.

A. On March 1, 191, the Plaintiff’s husband B (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) entered a company as a member of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Nonindicted Company”) and promoted to a management director in around 2006 and mainly took charge of the duties such as support for rental car dispatch, management of employees, and adjustment of accounting table. Around January 2012, the Plaintiff’s husband (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) performed the same duties as the previous one even after being promoted to a new position, taking into account the number of years of service, etc.

B. 14 employees of the non-party company worked at around 08:30, the deceased worked at around 19:00, and worked for at least six days a week except Sundays, and worked for at least 4-5 times a month and at least 1:2 employees on duty (at least 19:0 to 22:00, and work for up to 07:30 on the following day). The deceased showed that the characteristics of the work have not been well known to the employees from January 2012 promoted to the regular course of business, and the work volume has increased due to the increase in the number of work hours, there was symptoms, such as depression, depression, etc., upon retirement by one employee. In May of the same year, the garage of the non-party company was set up without permission for changing the form and quality of the garage of the non-party company, and the lessor demanded rent increase, etc.

D. Accordingly, the Deceased was diagnosed by visiting a mental department and hospital as “sulphical depression, response to other severe stress, and sulphical depression,” and received outpatient treatment from June 27, 2012 to July 9, 2012.

E. From July 13, 2012 to August 9, 2012, the deceased attempted suicide at his own home and received hospitalized treatment under the diagnosis of the “serious U. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S.C., during the aforementioned hospitalization period, repeatedly complained of conflicts with the representative director and difficulties between the representative director and their employees, etc., and made a statement to the effect that the company’s thoughts are imminent and imminent. In addition, the deceased was concerned about whether he was responsible due to the problem such as the regulation of the garage and illegal change of the form and quality, the preparation of the garage lease contract without the representative director and the representative director, and expressed the fear of the representative director who will be responsible for him.

F. On August 13, 2012, the Deceased continued to work at the Jeju University Hospital on September 11, 2012 after submitting a resignation letter to the non-party company on August 13, 2012, and was hospitalized on September 21, 2012 for the excessive recovery from water, and received hospitalized treatment until September 21, 201. At the time, the Deceased mentioned several times as to the issue that the deceased should reimburse the expenses omitted in the account book and retire the non-party company. Ultimately, the issue was that the deceased could not be resolved at his home on October 15, 2012 after the discharge until suicide.

G. Before 2012, the Deceased did not have a record of mental therapy due to depression, etc. The Deceased’s work bonus was stated to the Deceased that there was no particular family problem or monetary problem.

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

The deceased worked at around 08:30 and retired from the office at around 19:00 a month, and worked at the 4-5th of each month, etc. In addition, the deceased appeared to have been under considerable stress on the idea that the representative director is responsible for the suspension of business or the imposition of fine, as the company garage increased around May 2012 and when the company garage controls the illegal change of form and quality, the company garage came to be under the control of the illegal change of form and quality. As a matter of the lease contract related to the re-contract of the garage, the deceased seems to have been under the duty of the representative director or to be responsible for it.

Furthermore, the deceased complained of depression and depression due to such occupational burden and stress, and even after having received mental treatment, his attempt to commit suicide seems to have deteriorated. In addition, the deceased submitted a resignation to the company in order to escape from stress caused by work on August 13, 2012, but it is inevitable to continue to work in order to find materials due to the problem of payment omitted in the book, and the depression is rapidly deepened.

Therefore, in light of these circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Deceased caused depression due to excessive work and other extreme stress related thereto, and such depression was rapidly aggravated due to the burden of occupational burden.

In addition, considering all the circumstances such as the situation in which the deceased continued to make efforts to lead a normal life beyond occupational stress, such as submitting a resignation letter and receiving hospitalized treatment, but the deceased's suicide after two times after the attempt to commit suicide, it can be inferred that a reasonable judgment was caused by depression, taking into account the situation where the deceased's normal perception, ability to choose an act, and mental suppression significantly has been significantly deteriorated, and thus, a proximate causal relation between the deceased's work and the death can be acknowledged.

4. Nevertheless, the lower court did not closely consider the cause and degree of occupational stress received by the deceased, the developments deepening the depression of the deceased, the psychological situation of the deceased at the time of suicide, etc., and determined that the occupational stress exposed to the deceased is difficult to be deemed to have caused or deepened depression, and denied the causal relationship between the deceased’s death and the work. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the causal relationship between the duties and the death in the occupational accident, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation contained in the grounds of appeal on this point is with merit.

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 Jae-sik, Counsel for the defendant

Justices Park Byung-hee

Chief Justice Park Jong-young

Justices Kim Jong-il