beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for an addition of the judgment as to a new argument by the court of first instance, which is identical to that by the following Paragraph (2). Thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2)
2. Determination on addition
A. At the time of the instant accident, the Deceased died due to a difficulty in repulmon, etc. due to a sudden collision between the parts of the chest on the protruding part of the Hand-wing part installed in hand at the time of the instant accident, resulting in a so-called confluence at the heart by pressure at the heart.
Even if it is not so, there is a proximate causal relation between the death and the work of the deceased, since the death of the deceased is caused by an acute disease, such as heart rain, etc. by rapid aggravation of basic diseases such as high blood pressure of the deceased, such as long distance of long-term activities repeated daily after the deceased's entry into D, vehicle operation, work performance, and psychological pressure on regular employment.
Therefore, the instant disposition on the ground that it is difficult to recognize the proximate causal relation between the deceased’s death and the work should be revoked in an unlawful manner.
B. Determination 1) In order for the death to be recognized due to an occupational reason as stipulated in Article 5 subparag. 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the death was caused by the occupational reason, and there is a proximate causal relation between the work and the accident. In this case, the causal relation between the worker’s work and the accident should be proved by the assertion. Thus, if the worker’s private life is unclear, it cannot be presumed to be caused by the death due to the occupational reason (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du8449, Dec. 26, 2003).