Workbear재주넘는곰
대법원 98두12642

Revocation of Disposition Denying Bereaved Family Benefits and Funeral Expenses유족급여및장의비부지급처분취소

Decided1998. 12. 08. Court대법원Case reversed and remanded to the lower court for further review (favorable development for the worker's bereaved family)
AI-generated English translation (summary, key points, decision summary and full text) for reference only — not an official translation and without legal effect. The Korean original below is authoritative.
AI Easy read — AI summary of this decision
AI-generated summary for reference only — the Korean original below is authoritative.

A worker who had been infected with Hepatitis B before joining the company died of liver cancer that worsened due to work-related overwork and drinking associated with his job duties. The Supreme Court of Korea held that when a pre-existing disease is aggravated at a pace faster than its natural progression due to work conditions, it can still be recognized as an occupational accident (업무상 재해). The Court reversed and remanded the case, finding that the lower court had failed to sufficiently examine the causal relationship between the work and the worker's death.

Key takeaways
  • CaseA worker with pre-existing Hepatitis B died of liver cancer allegedly worsened by work-related overwork and drinking.
  • OutcomeThe Supreme Court ruled that aggravation of a pre-existing illness due to work conditions can qualify as an occupational accident, and remanded the case for further factual examination.
  • LessonEmployers and insurers should recognize that a worker's pre-existing condition does not automatically bar occupational accident (업무상 재해) claims if work stress or environment accelerates the disease's progression.
Issues
  • Standard for recognizing a causal relationship between work and death of an employee with a pre-existing medical condition
  • Whether work-related overwork and alcohol consumption can be considered contributing factors to the aggravation of hepatitis into liver cancer
Key reasoning

The Court clarified that establishing an occupational accident does not require clear-cut medical proof, but only a 'substantial causal relationship' (상당인과관계) between work and the resulting harm. Even if a worker had a pre-existing illness unrelated to work, if job-related overwork or stress causes that illness to progress abnormally faster than its natural course, this can still qualify as an occupational accident. In this case, the deceased's underlying Hepatitis B infection developed into fatal liver cancer, and the key question was whether work-induced fatigue and job-related alcohol consumption accelerated this progression. The Supreme Court found that the lower court had not adequately investigated this causal link and sent the case back for further review.

Summary of Decision (English, AI translation)

[1] The term "occupational accident" under Article 4, Subparagraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (산업재해보상보험법) means an illness that arises in the course of an employee's performance of duties and is caused by such duties. Therefore, there must be a causal relationship between the employee's duties and the illness that caused death. However, even if the main cause of the illness is not directly related to the performance of duties, if at least work-related overexertion or stress overlapped with the main cause of the illness and thereby induced or aggravated the illness, a causal relationship between them should be recognized. Such causal relationship need not be clearly proven in a medical or scientific manner; it is sufficient if, considering all the circumstances, a proximate causal relationship between the duties and the illness can be inferred, in which case such proof shall be deemed to have been established. Furthermore, this includes cases where an underlying or pre-existing illness, which would otherwise have allowed the employee to work normally, was rapidly aggravated beyond its natural progression due to excessive workload or other work-related causes.

[2] In a case where an employee, who had been infected with hepatitis B prior to joining the company, died of liver cancer while employed, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court below, which had held that this did not constitute an occupational accident, on the ground that there was room to find that overwork and frequent work-related drinking, while the employee served as the general affairs manager, had rapidly aggravated the pre-existing hepatitis beyond its natural progression into liver cancer.

Full text (English, AI translation) 6,333 chars

[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff
[Defendant, Appellee] Korea Workers' Compensation & Welfare Service
[Judgment Below] Seoul High Court Decision 97Gu33753 delivered on June 12, 1998

[Order]

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

[Reasoning]

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, after finding the facts as stated in its holding, determined as follows: Non-party 1, the Plaintiff's husband, had already been infected with hepatitis B before joining Non-party ○○ Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter abbreviated as "Non-party Company"); in Non-party 1's case, after being diagnosed with liver cancer, the disease progressed rapidly and he died, and if liver cancer is left untreated, the 6-month survival rate is only 37.5% and the 1-year survival rate only 16.6%; although overwork or stress may temporarily worsen liver function, there is no medical evidence as to whether overwork or stress is a cause aggravating hepatitis and progressing it to liver cancer, or as to the respective causes and aggravating factors of hepatitis and liver cancer. Comprehensively considering the foregoing, the court below determined that even though Non-party 1 had the pre-existing disease of hepatitis B and worked overtime beyond normal working hours until 21:00 approximately 15 days per month, and also worked on Sundays approximately once a month, it is difficult to find that this caused his pre-existing hepatitis to worsen beyond its natural course into cirrhosis or liver cancer, and further into obstructive jaundice or renal failure, and therefore his death cannot be found to have a substantial causal relationship with his work.

An occupational accident under Article 4, Item 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (산업재해보상보험법) refers to a disease that arose due to the worker's business in the course of performing that business; thus, there must be a causal relationship between the work and the disease that caused the death. However, even if the primary cause of the disease has no direct relation to the performance of work duties, if at least work-related overwork or stress was superimposed upon the primary cause of the disease and thereby induced or aggravated the disease, a causal relationship between the two should be recognized. Such causal relationship need not necessarily be clearly proven medically or scientifically; even where, considering all the circumstances, a substantial causal relationship between the work and the disease can be inferred, such proof should be deemed to exist. Moreover, this includes cases where an underlying disease or pre-existing disease, which would normally permit normal work performance, rapidly worsened beyond its natural progression rate due to causes such as excessive workload, and proof of such rapid worsening exists (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu7530 delivered on August 29, 1997; Supreme Court Decision 97Nu10 delivered on May 28, 1997, etc.).

However, according to the result of the fact inquiry to the director of □□□□ Hospital, College of Medicine, △△ University (record p. 137), which was adopted by the court below, although overwork and stress are suggested as a possibility among some of the causes of hepatitis B, cirrhosis, and liver cancer, it is not well known to what degree overwork and stress serve as a causative factor; while hepatitis B can progress to cirrhosis and liver cancer, not everyone who contracts hepatitis B progresses to cirrhosis or liver cancer; and in a state where hepatitis B is present, overwork and stress have the possibility of accelerating the worsening into cirrhosis or liver cancer.

According to this, even if overwork or stress cannot be concluded to be an independent cause of cirrhosis or liver cancer, there is room to view it as at least corresponding to a factor that aggravates hepatitis B into cirrhosis or liver cancer.

Furthermore, even according to the findings of the court below itself, sustained consumption of large quantities of alcohol over a long period (one 2-hop bottle of soju per day) can cause cirrhosis and also increases the probability of developing liver cancer. Non-party 1, while performing his duties as the general affairs department manager of Non-party Company, was subjected to an excessive workload such that he worked overtime beyond the Company's prescribed working hours for more than 3 hours a day approximately 15 days per month, and came to work even on Sundays about once a month; he showed a face indicating he had been drinking when arriving at work 3 to 4 days a week, and the amount consumed per occasion was more than one 2-hop bottle of soju. Meanwhile, according to the record, it can be seen that Non-party 1 frequently drank due to frequent entertainment for the management of business clients (record pp. 127, 159). Accordingly, there is room to find that such overwork and drinking rapidly aggravated the deceased's pre-existing disease, hepatitis, beyond its natural progression rate.

Therefore, it is deemed that the court below needed to further examine matters such as the degree of work-related overwork and stress that Non-party 1 bore, the temporal and quantitative scope of the drinking related to his work, and the effect thereof on his health, which had already been afflicted with hepatitis B, in particular whether or not there was a possibility of the hepatitis B worsening into liver cancer at that time.

Nevertheless, the court below's conclusion that there was no substantial causal relationship between Non-party 1's death and his work constitutes an unlawful act affecting the judgment, in that it misapprehended the facts due to incomplete deliberation or erred in its understanding of the legal principles concerning occupational accidents under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act. The Appellant's argument pointing this out is justified and is therefore accepted.

Accordingly, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for further hearing and determination, this being the unanimous opinion of the Justices concerned, and the judgment is rendered as stated in the Order.

Justice Kim Hyung-sun (Presiding Justice), Jeong Gwi-ho, Lee Yong-hun, Cho Mu-je (Justice in charge)

【판결요지】

[1] 산업재해보상보험법 제4조 제1호 소정의 업무상의 재해라고 함은 근로자의 업무수행중 그 업무에 기인하여 발생한 질병을 의미하는 것이므로 업무와 사망의 원인이 된 질병 사이에 인과관계가 있어야 하지만, 질병의 주된 발생원인이 업무수행과 직접적인 관계가 없더라도 적어도 업무상의 과로나 스트레스가 질병의 주된 발생원인에 겹쳐서 질병을 유발 또는 악화시켰다면 그 사이에 인과관계가 있다고 보아야 할 것이고, 그 인과관계는 반드시 의학적·자연과학적으로 명백히 입증하여야 하는 것은 아니고 제반 사정을 고려할 때 업무와 질병 사이에 상당인과관계가 있다고 추단되는 경우에도 그 입증이 있다고 보아야 하고, 또한 평소에 정상적인 근무가 가능한 기초질병이나 기존질병이 직무의 과중 등이 원인이 되어 자연적인 진행속도 이상으로 급격하게 악화된 때에도 그 입증이 있는 경우에 포함된다.

[2] 입사 전에 비형 간염에 감염된 근로자가 재직중 간암으로 사망한 사안에서, 총무부장으로 근무하면서 과로와 업무상 잦은 음주가 기존질병인 간염을 자연적인 진행속도를 넘어 간암으로 급격하게 악화시켰다고 볼 여지가 있다는 이유로, 업무상 재해에 해당하지 않는다고 본 원심판결을 파기한 사례.

【참조조문】

[1] 산업재해보상보험법 제4조 제1호

[2] 산업재해보상보험법 제4조 제1호

【참조판례】

[1][2] 대법원 1997. 5. 28. 선고 97누10 판결(공1997하, 1899) / [1] 대법원 1993. 10. 12. 선고 93누9408 판결(공1993하, 3101), 대법원 1995. 3. 14. 선고 94누7935 판결(공1995상, 1635), 대법원 1996. 9. 10. 선고 96누6806 판결(공1996하, 3053), 대법원 1997. 8. 29. 선고 97누7530 판결

【주문】·【이유】 전문 2,431자 · 펼쳐 보기

【원고, 상고인】 원고

【피고, 피상고인】 근로복지공단

【원심판결】 서울고법 1998. 6. 12. 선고 97구33753 판결

【주 문】

원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.

【이 유】 상고이유를 판단한다.

원심판결 이유에 의하니, 원심은 그의 판시와 같은 사실을 인정한 다음, 원고의 남편이던 소외 1은 소외 ○○토건 주식회사(아래에서는 소외 회사라고 줄여 쓴다)에 입사하기 전부터 비형 간염에 감염되어 있었던 점, 소외 1의 경우 간암으로 진단받고 나서 빠르게 진행되어 사망하였는데, 간암을 치료하지 아니할 경우 6개월 생존율은 37.5%, 1년 생존율은 16.6%에 불과한 점, 과로나 스트레스는 일시적으로 간기능을 악화시킬 수는 있으나, 간염 및 간암의 각 발생원인 및 악화인자, 간염을 악화시켜 간암으로 진행시키는 원인인 여부에 관한 의학적 증거가 없는 점 등을 종합하면, 그는 비록 기존질병인 비형 간염을 갖고 있었고 정상적인 근무시간을 초과하여 한 달에 15일 정도를 21:00까지 초과근무하였으며 한 달에 1일 정도는 일요일에도 근무하였다고 하더라도, 그로 인하여 기존의 간염이 자연적 경과 이상으로 악화되어 간경변이나 간암으로, 그리고 폐쇄성 황달이나 신부전 등으로 진행되었다고 보기 어려우므로, 그의 사망은 업무와 상당인과관계가 있다고 볼 수 없다고 판단하였다.

산업재해보상보험법 제4조 제1호 소정의 업무상의 재해라고 함은 근로자의 업무수행중 그 업무에 기인하여 발생한 질병을 의미하는 것이므로 업무와 사망의 원인이 된 질병 사이에 인과관계가 있어야 하지만, 질병의 주된 발생원인이 업무수행과 직접적인 관계가 없더라도 적어도 업무상의 과로나 스트레스가 질병의 주된 발생원인에 겹쳐서 질병을 유발 또는 악화시켰다면 그 사이에 인과관계가 있다고 보아야 할 것이고, 그 인과관계는 반드시 의학적·자연과학적으로 명백히 입증하여야 하는 것은 아니고 제반 사정을 고려할 때 업무와 질병 사이에 상당인과관계가 있다고 추단되는 경우에도 그 입증이 있다고 보아야 하고, 또한 평소에 정상적인 근무가 가능한 기초질병이나 기존질병이 직무의 과중 등이 원인이 되어 자연적인 진행속도 이상으로 급격하게 악화된 때에도 그 입증이 있는 경우에 포함된다(대법원 1997. 8. 29. 선고 97누7530 판결, 1997. 5. 28. 선고 97누10 판결 등 참조).

그런데 원심이 채택한 △△대학교 의과대학 □□□□ 병원장에 대한 사실조회결과(기록 137쪽)에 의하니, 과로와 스트레스는 비형 간염 또는 간경변, 간암의 발생원인의 일부로 가능성이 제시되고는 있지만 어느 정도의 과로 및 스트레스가 발생원인이 되는지는 잘 알려져 있지 아니하며, 비형 간염이 간경변, 간암으로 이행할 수는 있지만 비형 간염에 걸린 모든 사람이 간경변, 간암으로 이행되는 것은 아니며, 비형 간염이 있는 상태에서 과로와 스트레스는 간경변, 간암으로 악화되는 것을 가속시킬 가능성이 있다는 것이다.

이에 의하면, 과로나 스트레스가 간경변 또는 간암의 독립한 발생원인으로 단정할 수는 없다 하더라도 적어도 비형 간염을 간경변이나 간암으로 악화시키는 인자에 해당된다고 볼 여지가 있다.

또한 원심이 인정한 바에 의하더라도, 장기간 다량의 알코올(하루에 소주 2홉들이 1병)을 지속적으로 섭취하면 간경변이 발생할 수 있고 간암의 발생확률도 높아지는데, 소외 1은 소외 회사의 총무부장으로서의 업무를 수행해 오면서, 소외 회사의 규정된 근무시간보다 한 달에 약 15일 정도는 1일 3시간 이상씩 연장근무를 하고, 한 달에 1회 정도는 일요일에도 출근할 정도로 과중한 업무에 시달리고 있었으며, 1주일에 3, 4일은 아침에 출근하면 음주한 얼굴이었고, 1회 음주량은 소주 2홉들이 1병 이상이었다는 것이고, 한편, 기록에 의하면, 소외 1은 거래처 관리를 위하여 빈번한 접대로 음주가 잦았던 사실(기록 127쪽, 159쪽)을 알 수 있으므로 위와 같은 과로와 음주는 망인의 기존질병인 간염을 자연적인 진행속도를 넘어서서 급격하게 악화시켰다고 볼 여지가 있다.

따라서 원심으로서는 소외 1이 감당해 낸 업무상 과로와 스트레스의 정도, 업무와 관련하여 음주를 한 시간적·수량적 범위, 그리고 그에 의하여 이미 비형 간염에 이환된 그의 건강이 받게 되는 영향 특히 그 때 비형 간염이 간암으로 악화될 가능성의 유무 등에 관하여 더 심리해 볼 필요가 있다고 판단된다.

그럼에도 불구하고 원심이 소외 1의 사망과 업무 사이에 상당인과관계가 없다고 단정한 것은 심리미진으로 사실을 오인하였다거나 산업재해보상보험법상의 업무상 재해에 관한 법리를 오해함으로써 판결에 영향을 미친 위법이 있다 할 것이니, 이 점을 탓하는 상고인의 주장은 정당하기에 받아들인다.

그러므로 원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 다시 심리·판단케 하기 위하여 원심법원에 환송하기로 관여 법관의 의견이 일치되어 주문에 쓴 바와 같이 판결한다.

대법관 김형선(재판장) 정귀호 이용훈 조무제(주심)

Related statutes

Similar cases

Cases with high content similarity to this one.

#1
97누10 · 대법원 1997-05-28
Revocation of Disposition Denying Survivors' Benefits, etc.
#2
2013구단2032 · 대구지방법원 0001-01-01
Revocation of Disposition Denying Survivors' Benefits and Fu
#3
2010구합1440 · 울산지방법원 0001-01-01
Revocation of Disposition Denying Survivors' Benefits and Fu
#4
2011구단4447 · 대구지방법원 0001-01-01
Revocation of Disposition Denying Survivors' Benefits and Fu
#5
2015구단101193 · 대전지방법원 0001-01-01
Revocation of Disposition Denying Survivors' Benefits and Fu

Cases citing this decision

2003두12844 · 대법원 2004-03-26
Revocation of Disposition Denying Survivors' Compensation an
2003두5501 · 대법원 2003-11-14
Revocation of Disposition Denying Survivor Benefits and Fune
2000두4538 · 대법원 2001-07-27
Revocation of Disapproval of Industrial Accident Medical Car
98누251 · 대구고법 1998-10-29
Revocation of Disposition Denying Survivors' Benefits and Fu

Related tools & guides

AI answers need an account (free accounts: 2 per month) — submit and you'll return to this question after logging in. Search and case reading stay free.

Cross-check the original: 국가법령정보센터 (auxiliary link)