2015Da249437 Mutual Aid Benefits

1. A;

2. B

3. C.

4. D;

Plaintiff 3., 4. is a minor.

The legal representative A and the mother B

Seoul Special Metropolitan City School Safety Mutual Aid Association

Seoul High Court Decision 2015Na2035445 Decided October 16, 2015

September 8, 2016

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

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Article 39 of the Act on the Prevention of and Compensation for Accidents at School (hereinafter “School Safety Act”) and Article 40 of the same Act provide that the amount of bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses shall be paid to “where an insured person dies due to a school safety accident.” Thus, in order to receive the benefits of bereaved family and funeral expenses, there exists a causal relationship between the pre-school accident and the death. However, even if the principal cause of death does not have a direct relationship with the school safety accident, if at least the school safety accident overlaps with the principal cause of death and causes death, then the causal relationship exists between the death. Such causal relationship does not necessarily have to be proved by medical and natural science, and even if it is presumed that there is a proximate causal relationship between the school safety accident and the death when considering all the circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da11961, Dec. 13, 2012).

2. A. The reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveal the following.

(1) E (the 2002 students) who were enrolled at the F Elementary School (hereinafter referred to as the “School”) was used in the front corridor of the lecture party among the lectures listed through stairs up to the fifth floor of the school building that is a class place in order to participate in the Taekwondo class operated by a school around 09:00 on October 12, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the “school safety accident of this case”).

(2) A Taekwondo class instructor discovered E and reported it to the Safety Report Center around 09:02 on the same day, and at the time, E was in the state of weak gambling and respiratoryness.

(3) Around 09:18 on the same day, the 119 first responded to the emergency room of the Gangseo-gu Seongbuk Hospital at around 09:23 on the same day. At that time, E was in a state of heart suspension where active symptoms are not measured, and the death diagnosis was finally conducted at around 12:31 on the same day after death, and the private person was 'the certificate of acute funeral'.

(4) At the time, the medical specialist in the department of emergency medical services at the Gangnam-si Hospital, who was in charge of emergency medical services at the time and prepared the death diagnosis, stated that if the E was in a situation where the fact-finding on the director of the Gangnam-si Hospital at the court of first instance, E would be presumed to be a serious stop due to the heart misappropriation.

(5) E was active as a swimming player from the first to fourth grade of an elementary school, and was written in school classes around July 2013, but the cause was not revealed, and there is no other evidence to deem that E had a king or a fatal factor, which caused the symptoms of acute funeral.

B. Examining such circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that there exists a proximate causal relationship between the instant school safety accident and the death of E. Nevertheless, the lower court determined that there is no proximate causal relationship between the instant school safety accident and the death of E on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the determination of causal relationship between the school safety accident and the death in relation to the requirements for the payment of survivor benefits and funeral expenses as prescribed by the School Safety Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cho Jong-hee

A person shall be appointed.