[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff
[Defendant, Appellee] Head of Seoul Eastern District Labor Office
[Judgment Below] Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu12000 rendered May 19, 1994
[Order]
The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
[Reasoning]
The grounds of appeal are examined.
The court below found as follows: the deceased, the husband of the Plaintiff, had worked as a taxi driver for Nonparty ○○○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "the Nonparty Company") since June 24, 1985. At the end of May 1992, he received a 49-day driver's license suspension due to exceeding the penalty point limit, and he took leave from June 1 of that year. On June 9 of that year, while receiving traffic safety education conducted by the Seoul Branch of the Road Traffic Safety Association, he collapsed and was taken to a hospital, but died at approximately 11:30 the following day, the direct cause of death being brainstem paralysis and the underlying cause being subarachnoid hemorrhage. Regarding the Plaintiff's assertion that the deceased's death constituted an occupational accident because it resulted from accumulated fatigue due to excessive work, the court below held that the deceased had voluntarily gone to receive traffic safety education during the period of his license suspension in order to have that suspension period shortened, and therefore his death could not be regarded as an accident occurring in the performance of his duties or incidental thereto. The court below further held that it could not be found that the deceased had been subject to an excessive workload sufficient to cause mental or physical overwork, and therefore it could not be said that accumulated work-related overwork during his employment at the Nonparty Company was the cause of his death. On this basis, the court below held that the Defendant's disposition denying industrial accident compensation in this case was lawful.
First, as to the requirement of "performance of duties" (business execution) for an occupational accident, this need not be recognized only during the period in which the worker is actually engaged in the performance of duties; an accident occurring in the course of activities incidental to the performance of duties may also be recognized as having occurred in the performance of duties. According to the record, it can be inferred that the deceased had no choice but to engage in unreasonable driving, including violations of traffic regulations, in order to meet the quota (sanapgeum) amid Seoul's traffic congestion. Under the relevant statutes, a person who violates road traffic regulations must receive special traffic safety education as prescribed by Ministry of Home Affairs Ordinance (Article 49(2) of the Road Traffic Act (도로교통법)); the date, time, and place of such education are to be notified to the person subject thereto by means of a notice of education (Article 5 of the Enforcement Rules of the same Act); and a person who fails to receive such education is subject to punishment by a fine not exceeding 50,000 won, detention, or a minor fine (Article 113 of the same Act). Accordingly, if the deceased's 49-day driver's license suspension due to exceeding the penalty point limit was not the result of his own intentional act or gross negligence, but rather resulted from the accumulation of penalty points because, like other drivers employed by the Nonparty Company, he had no choice but to violate traffic regulations while driving unreasonably in order to meet the quota amid traffic congestion, then his attendance at the traffic safety education, which he was obligated to receive incidental to the suspension disposition, may be regarded as an act incidental to the performance of his duties, and there is room to recognize that it falls within the performance of duties.
Furthermore, even if the primary cause of a disease is not directly related to work, if work-related overwork at least combines with the primary cause of the disease to induce or aggravate the disease, a causal relationship exists (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu10015 rendered April 14, 1992). Moreover, such causal relationship need not necessarily be clearly proven in medical or scientific terms; proof exists where, considering all the circumstances, a substantial causal relationship between the work and the disease may be inferred (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu9408 rendered October 12, 1993). According to the record, the Nonparty Company operated on a two-shift daily system, with the morning shift working from 07:00 to 16:00 and the afternoon shift working from 17:00 to 02:00 the following day, with the shift pattern to be alternated weekly; however, it can be seen that in practice, drivers frequently worked from 10 to 12 hours per day in order to meet the quota. It is not difficult to infer that the deceased would have accumulated mental and physical fatigue due to this alternating day/night shift pattern and excessive work. The cause of the deceased's death, brainstem paralysis resulting from subarachnoid hemorrhage, occurs through cerebral infarction due to vasospasm and cerebral herniation due to increased intracranial pressure, with elevated blood pressure being the direct cause of subarachnoid hemorrhage; since overwork can induce elevated blood pressure, overwork may also serve as an indirect cause of subarachnoid hemorrhage. In this case, where no evidence whatsoever has been presented in the pleadings to indicate that the deceased had previously suffered from any pre-existing condition that could have caused subarachnoid hemorrhage, or that he had engaged in any activity during his leave due to the license suspension that could have caused overwork, there is ample room to find a substantial causal relationship between the fatigue accumulated from the deceased's continued unreasonable work and the subarachnoid hemorrhage.
Nevertheless, the court below's determination that the deceased's death was unrelated to the performance of his duties and was not attributable to his work constitutes an error in fact-finding due to a failure to fully examine the evidence, or a misapprehension of the legal principles regarding causation in occupational accidents, and it is clear that such error affected the outcome of the judgment. Accordingly, the ground of appeal pointing this out is well-founded.
Therefore, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for further examination and judgment. This judgment is rendered by the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices as set forth in the Order.
Justice Jung Gwi-ho (Presiding Justice), Kim Seok-su, Lee Don-hui, Lee Im-su (Justice in charge)