[1] Whether a worker can be presumed to have died due to his/her duties where the worker died while performing his/her duties but the cause of death is unclear (negative)

[2] The case holding that where an apartment security guard died while on duty, it does not constitute an occupational accident in light of the nature of security service, etc. even if the private person dies in the heart

[1] For the death to be recognized due to an occupational reason as stipulated in Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the death in question has occurred due to not only the death during the performance of duties but also the occupational injury and there should be a proximate causal relation between the duties and the accident. In this case, the causal relation between the duties and the accident of the worker should be proved by the assertion. Thus, even if the worker's death occurred during the performance of duties, if the cause of death is unclear, it shall not be presumed to have occurred due

[2] The case holding that an apartment security guard's death while on duty does not constitute an occupational accident on the ground that it is difficult to deem that the deceased's duty was caused by occupational work and stress in light of the fact that the deceased's duty was relatively simple and minor physical labor, even though the private person was in severe paralysis

[1] Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act / [2] Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 88Nu5037 decided Oct. 23, 1990 (Gong1990, 2425) Supreme Court Decision 96Nu1726 decided Feb. 25, 1997; Supreme Court Decision 97Nu19984 decided Feb. 27, 1998; Supreme Court Decision 98Du3303 decided Apr. 24, 1998 (Gong198Sang, 1520)

Plaintiff

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Daejeon High Court Decision 97Gu1721 delivered on June 26, 1998

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment below is as follows.

From July 2, 1995, Nonparty 1, the husband of the Plaintiff, worked as security guards of ○○ apartment, and was found to have died in the above apartment room of 5:10 on May 12, 1996. The doctor who examined the deceased’s body was presumed to have been extremely weak and presumed to have a heart for the private person. The deceased’s working hours are from 06:40 to 06:40 on the following day, and 24 hours shift from the deceased’s day to 120 hours, and the deceased’s specific duties were carried out by 120 households, connected with the deceased’s apartment premises, connected to the occupants, notified the apartment premises to the occupants, provided that the deceased’s body’s body was inspected, and the deceased’s body was determined to have been inspected within 1:5 hours at the night time, and the deceased’s body was able to have his/her superior to the deceased’s health room, and thus, the deceased’s work and 24 hours at the night.

In light of the above work form and the duties of the deceased, even though the intensity of the work itself cannot be excessive and it was possible for the deceased to take a certain rest at night, the deceased continued to perform his duties by the method of 24 hours daily work, which is performed mainly in normal life and body rhythm, with physical and mental disorder and stress accumulated, and this is deemed to have died by causing heart expenses. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that there is a proximate causal relation between the deceased’s duties and death.

2. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept.

In order to be recognized as a death due to an occupational reason as stipulated in Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the death in question must be the death during the performance of duties, and there should be proximate causal relation between the business and the accident. In this case, the causal relation between the business and the accident of the worker should be proved by the claimant. Thus, even if the worker's death was in the course of performing duties, if the cause of death is uncertain, it cannot be presumed to be caused by the death in the course of performing duties (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du3303, Apr. 24, 1998).

However, according to the records, there is no fact that the deceased had a healthy and particular physical disease and had no physical pain or mental stress on his family members or her members. It is difficult to believe that the opinion of the body body examination presumed that the deceased died of the heart due to overwork because the telegraph of the deceased was extremely inactive, and there is no evidence that the deceased died of the heart due to overwork, and it is unclear that the cause of death is not clear. Even if the deceased died of the death of the aftermath of the heart, it is a security service corresponding to a relatively simple and easy physical labor, and even if the deceased died of the aftermath of the body work, it is difficult to take a rest day on the next day of the work, and even at the night, it is naturally difficult to see that the deceased’s work continues to be performed due to stress or stress on the part of the deceased, and there is no other evidence that the deceased might continue to work in the same way as that of the deceased.

Nevertheless, the court below recognized the cause of the death of the deceased as the heart expenses, and recognized the death of the deceased as an occupational accident because the heart funeral expenses incurred from excessive occupational progress and stress accumulated. Therefore, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the causation of occupational accidents due to the violation of the rules of evidence or the misapprehension of legal principles as to the mistake of facts against the rules of evidence.

3. 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 Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)