In a case where Party A, who was hospitalized at a hospital due to an occupational accident, such as Eulphane addiction, died of an accident in the course of being hospitalized in and receiving medical treatment at the hospital due to an occupational accident, and Party B’s spouse Eul also claimed expenses for survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses, but the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service did not pay survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses on the ground that “it is difficult to see Party A’s traffic accident as an accident during medical treatment, and it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relationship between Eulphism and death,” the case holding that the above disposition issued on a different premise is unlawful on the ground that: (a) Party A’s death of a hospital, which was a medical care institution to treat an injury such as Eulphan poisoning addiction, which was recognized as an occupational accident, died of an accident in the course and in the normal way, and there is a proximate causal relation between Party

The case is that: (a) as a result of the occupational accident, the injury, such as Eulphane addiction, etc., caused the death of a patient who was hospitalized in the hospital and receiving medical treatment, and died of the accident where the patient was faced with head on the ground while getting on and off a motorcycle; (b) the spouse Eul also claimed that the above accident was an occupational accident; and (c) the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service requested the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses; (d) it is difficult to view that the accident during the medical care under Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act is an accident since the death of A due to a traffic accident; and (e) it is difficult to recognize the proximate causal relation between the Eulphane addiction and the death

The case holding that considering that the type of occupational accident under the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act is an example provision, it cannot be determined that it does not constitute occupational accident solely on the ground that it does not fall under the type prescribed in the above Act and subordinate statutes, the risks accompanying the employment relationship should not necessarily be accompanied by the performance of duties themselves in determining proximate causal relation, and once, the risks accompanying the employment relationship should include risks ordinarily accompanying the treatment of occupational accidents recognized as proximate causal relation, and Gap received medical treatment for occupational accidents, such as Eulphane addiction, etc. at the hospital in the vicinity of the residence where the traffic accident occurred, and since the distance between the medical examination and the traffic accident is not more than 30 minutes, and the location where the accident occurred is ordinarily on the normal route where the hospital was taken care of the occupational accident, traffic accidents are recognized as unlawful on the ground that it is recognized that the above treatment of the occupational accident occurred between the medical care institution Gap and the occupational accident, which was recognized as a proximate causal relation.

Articles 5(1) and 37(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

Plaintiff (Law Firm Cho & Lee, Attorneys Jeong Byung-hee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

October 31, 2019

1. The disposition that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on February 25, 2019 on the bereaved family’s benefits and funeral expenses shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The deceased non-party (date of birth omitted) is a person who was hospitalized in the ○○ Hospital located in the Guri-si ( Address 1 omitted) on June 8, 1992 and received medical care due to the injury or disease, such as Eulphane addiction, inside and above, and in the absence of mental health care, while working at the Hari-si Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”). The plaintiff is the deceased's spouse.

B. On December 7, 2018, the Deceased was transferred to the △△ University Hospital located in the Guri-si, the residence of which was around 16:18, to the Gi-si ( Address 2 omitted) where he was living in the vicinity of the Guri-si, the Guri-si ( Address 3 omitted), where he was faced with head on the ground while getting off a motorcycle on the roads (hereinafter “the instant accident”), and around 16:38 of the same day, the Deceased died on December 28, 2018, to the “ brain pressure and training finishing expenses,” which is a direct death at around 05:10 on December 28, 2018.

C. On January 14, 2019, the Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant should recognize the instant accident as occupational accidents, on the grounds that the deceased’s usual sense was not good due to the symptoms of Eulphan carbon addiction, etc., and that the instant accident should also be recognized as occupational accidents. However, on February 25, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition not to pay survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the grounds that it is difficult to recognize the proximate causal relation between the symptoms of Eulphan and the death, which are the injury-related disease recognized as industrial accident, as the deceased died due to a traffic accident, it cannot be deemed as an accident during medical care under Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 1, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Relevant statutes and relevant legal principles

1) The relevant laws and regulations are as listed in the attached Form.

2) The proximate causal relation between the work for recognizing occupational accidents and the accident under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act is not necessarily required to be clearly proved in medical or natural science, and in light of all the circumstances, even if there is a proximate causal relation between the work and the accident, if it is presumed that there is a proximate causal relation between the work and the accident. Thus, even if there is no direct evidence as to the cause of the disaster, if it is possible to presume the occupational recognition based on the trend that can be reasonably explained under the rules of experience based on indirect facts, etc., it shall be deemed occupational accidents. Further, even if there is a proximate causal relation even if the occupational accident occurred in the course of treating the occupational accident due to the intervention in medical malpractice or the side effect of medicine or treatment method, it shall be deemed that the occupational accident falls under the occupational accident, as long as there is a proximate causal relation, and the above legal principles shall apply as seen earlier (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du13055, May 30, 2003).

B. Determination

1) The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the evidence Nos. 2, 5, 8, and 2 and 3, and the purport of the whole arguments and arguments as evidence Nos. 2 and 3.

① On December 7, 2018, around 30 minutes prior to the occurrence of the instant accident, the Deceased arrived at ○○○ Hospital, which is a medical institution for recuperation, around 15:53, 2018, and received treatment at around 16:06, and received treatment at around 16:06, and received medicine as ○○○ Hospital, a medical institution for recuperation, with a prescription drawn up at the same place, at the Guri-si ( Address 5 omitted) located in the neighboring wife.

② ○○○○ Hospital and ○○○ pharmacy are located far from the deceased’s residence, and the place where the instant accident occurred is located, on the route on which the deceased’s residence, and ○○ Hospital and ○○ pharmacy are located.

③ A private person on the deceased’s death diagnosis report is indicated as follows:

(A) The person other than the type of the death of an external hiverosis due to the cause of the hiverosis and the hiverosis (b) of the hiver hiver hiver hiver hiver hiver hiver hiver hives

④ During the last three months, the deceased’s main values at ○○○ Hospital complained of two pains, intestines, and respiratory difficulties. The deceased was suffering from a disease and high blood pressure, and the deceased complained of two symptoms and drugs for each disease and disease. As such, the deceased complained of two symptoms, brus, and brus, the disease recognized as an occupational accident was affected by the instant accident and the death of the deceased. The Defendant’s advisory opinions expressed that the death of the deceased was caused by external injury, such as brussis and brussis caused by a traffic accident, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the brus poisoning addiction, which was recognized as an occupational accident, had affected the death of the deceased.

2) Taking into account the following circumstances, the deceased’s death of ○○ Hospital, which was a medical care institution, in order to treat injury and disease, such as Eulphical and carbon addiction, recognized as an occupational accident, is recognized as a proximate causal relationship between the deceased’s death and his/her duties, as it was caused by the instant accident that occurred while multiple times and in a normal way. The instant disposition issued on a different premise is unlawful, and thus ought to be revoked.

○ The Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act forms occupational accidents by dividing them into occupational accidents, occupational diseases, and commuting accidents. Furthermore, the Enforcement Decree of the same Act sets forth that occupational accidents constitute occupational accidents only once they fall under occupational accidents (Articles 27 through 36) such as occupational accidents, occupational accidents during the performance of duties, accidents during medical care, accidents caused by a natural disaster in a workplace, accidents caused by a third party’s act, accidents during commuting to and from work, and occupational diseases, etc. However, since it is impossible to list all the causes of occupational accidents in legislative technology, the types of occupational accidents under the above Act and the Enforcement Decree should be deemed as exemplary provisions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du24214, Jun. 12, 2014). Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that occupational accidents do not constitute occupational accidents solely on the ground that they do not fall under the types prescribed in the above Act and the Enforcement Decree

Article 32 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 29354, Dec. 11, 2018) prescribes not only the type of occupational accident involving occupational accident but also the type of occupational accident involving occupational accident, namely, the so-called occupational recognition that the risk accompanied by occupational accident has been realized. However, the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act provides for the type of “other accidents involving occupational accident” which can be widely recognized as the type of “other accidents involving occupational accident.” If a proximate causal relation is acknowledged when a new injury or disease occurred in the course of treating occupational accident as seen earlier, it should be recognized as a new occupational accident. Considering that the former Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 29354, Dec. 11, 2018) is not only the medical accident in the course of treating occupational accident, but also the type of occupational accident involving the medical treatment of occupational disease within an industrial accident insurance-related medical institution under medical care, the meaning of proximate causal relation between occupational accident and occupational accident should be considered.

Since June 192, 192, the Deceased was recognized as an occupational accident, the deceased was hospitalized in the ○○○ Hospital located around his residence and was treated for outpatients. On December 7, 2018, 2018, ○○○○ Hospital received medical treatment as to the above injury. The time interval between the above medical treatment and the instant accident is about 30 minutes. Considering that the place where the instant accident occurred is located on the normal route where the deceased’s residence where ○○ Hospital was being treated as an occupational accident, the instant accident is recognized as having a practical risk ordinarily accompanying the process of admitting the industrial accident insurance-related medical institution where the deceased was receiving medical treatment for an occupational accident.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment] Relevant Statutes: omitted

Judges Long-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor (Presiding Judge)