The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. “Occupational accident” under Article 5 subparag. 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to an accident caused by an employee’s occupational failure during the performance of his/her duties, and there is a proximate causal relation between the occupational accident and the accident.

However, the causal relationship between the employee’s work and the accident must be proved by the assertion of such causal relationship. Even if the medical stress and the eromatic stress generally may cause the outbreak or aggravation of a disease, it is difficult to conceal the causal relationship if not only the cause of the outbreak or aggravation of the disease, but also the factors belonging to the private sector are involved in the complex and it cannot be seen that the risks inherent in the work have been realized.

(2) On February 5, 2002, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning after compiling the adopted evidence. The court below determined that there was a proximate causal relation between the death of the deceased and the occupational negligence or stress on the part of the deceased, on the ground that it is difficult to see that the deceased, in light of the Plaintiff’s husband’s work experience and work hours, etc., he/she suffered from chronic or heavy occupational stress, and that it is difficult to see that there was a tension, interest, blank, play, etc. to the degree that he/she was unexpected and difficult to predict within 24 hours before the deceased’s death, and that there was no special increase in the work volume of the deceased for not more than one week or for not more than one month, and there was no significant change in the intensity and responsibility of the work.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on proximate causal relation

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against.