Workbear재주넘는곰
대법원 94누2633

Revocation of Denial of Medical Care Benefits (요양급여부지급처분취소)요양급여부지급처분취소

Decided1994. 08. 26. Court대법원Worker won
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 licensed taxi driver developed headaches, stomach pain, and vomiting after being exposed to toxic gas from an LP gas-fueled vehicle, and sought recognition of this condition as a work-related injury (산업재해/업무상 재해) to receive medical care benefits (요양급여). The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the driver, holding that even without clear medical or scientific proof, a work-related injury can be recognized if a substantial causal link between the job and the illness can reasonably be inferred from the surrounding circumstances. The Court found that the timing of symptom onset matching the removal of a catalytic converter, combined with a co-driver experiencing the same symptoms, supported the conclusion that the illness was work-related.

Key takeaways
  • CaseA taxi driver suffered headaches, stomach pain, and vomiting after inhaling toxic gas released from his LP gas-powered taxi following removal of its catalytic converter.
  • OutcomeThe Supreme Court recognized the illness as work-related, ruling that a reasonably inferred causal link—based on circumstantial evidence like symptom timing and a co-worker's similar illness—is sufficient without requiring definitive medical proof.
  • LessonWorkers do not need scientifically conclusive evidence to claim work-related injury benefits; circumstantial evidence showing a reasonable link between working conditions and illness can be enough.
Issues
  • The required standard of proof for establishing causation between work duties and illness in work-related injury claims
  • Whether headaches, stomach pain, and vomiting suffered by an LP gas taxi driver qualify as a work-related injury (업무상 재해)
Key reasoning

The Court held that establishing causation for a work-related injury (업무상 재해) does not require conclusive medical or scientific proof; instead, it is sufficient if a substantial causal relationship (상당인과관계) can be reasonably inferred by considering all relevant circumstances, including the worker's health condition prior to employment, the presence of a disease-causing substance in the workplace, the length of employment, and whether others suffered similar illnesses. In this case, the fact that the driver's symptoms began around the same time the catalytic converter was removed from the vehicle—leading to increased toxic gas exposure from burning LP gas impurities—combined with a fellow shift driver experiencing identical symptoms, was sufficient to reasonably conclude that the toxic gas exposure caused the driver's condition. Therefore, strict scientific certainty was not required to establish the work-relatedness of the illness.

Summary of Decision (English, AI translation)

[1] "Occupational accident" under Article 3(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (산업재해보상보험법) refers to an accident that occurs to an employee in the course of performing his or her duties and that is attributable to those duties; accordingly, where the accident in question is a disease, there must be a proximate causal relationship between the duties and the disease. In such a case, the causal relationship between the employee's duties and the disease must be proven by the party asserting it; however, such causal relationship need not necessarily be proven clearly by medical or other scientific evidence. Even in a case where, upon consideration of all relevant circumstances—such as the employee's state of health at the time of employment, whether a causative substance for the disease existed in the workplace, the length of the period during which the employee worked in a workplace where such causative substance was present, and whether other employees who worked in the same workplace contracted the same type of disease—a proximate causal relationship between the duties and the disease is inferred to exist, such proof shall be deemed to have been established.

[2] A case in which a taxi driver's headaches, stomach pain, and vomiting symptoms were recognized as an occupational disease.

Full text (English, AI translation) 4,114 chars

[Plaintiff, Appellee]

[Defendant, Appellant] Head of Incheon Regional Labor Office
[Original Judgment] Seoul High Court, Judgment of January 20, 1994, Case No. 93Gu11977

[Order]

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

[Reasoning]

We examine the grounds of appeal.

"Occupational injury" under Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (산업재해보상보험법) refers to an injury or disease that a worker suffers arising from his or her duties while performing such duties. Accordingly, where the injury takes the form of a disease, there must be a proximate causal relationship between the disease and the worker's duties, and the party asserting such causal relationship bears the burden of proving it. However, such causal relationship need not necessarily be proven with clear medical or scientific certainty; if, upon consideration of all relevant circumstances—such as the worker's health condition at the time of employment, whether a causative substance was present at the workplace, the length of the worker's service at a workplace where such causative substance was present, and whether other workers at the same workplace contracted the same type of disease—it can be inferred that there exists a proximate causal relationship between the duties and the disease, such proof shall be deemed to have been established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Nu9408, delivered October 12, 1993).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, having found the facts as stated in its judgment based on the evidence presented, determined as follows: the Plaintiff, who had worked as a taxi driver of a business taxi since around 1984, suffers from symptoms including headaches, stomach pain, and vomiting, the precise medical cause of which has not been clearly established; and even though mere exposure to LP gas itself or to carbon monoxide generated from its combustion would be insufficient by itself to cause such symptoms, in light of the following circumstances: that the Plaintiff's symptoms began from the time when the catalyst—which served to remove the smell and noise of exhaust gas or LP gas—was removed from the muffler of the taxi in question, and that from that time the taxi emitted a strong smell of gas; that the symptoms appeared not only in the Plaintiff but also in a non-party who drove the same taxi on alternating shifts; and that, since LP gas contains impurities in addition to its original components, it is likely that harmful gases generated in the course of combustion of such impurities also seeped into the taxi—the court below found it reasonable to conclude that, unless it is established that the harmful gas generated from the combustion of impurities contained in LP gas cannot, by its nature, cause such symptoms as headaches, the Plaintiff's aforementioned symptoms were caused, or at least aggravated, by the harmful gas generated from the operation of the taxi. The court below thus determined that this constituted a disease attributable to occupational causes, and accordingly revoked the Defendant's disposition disapproving medical care benefits in this case.

Upon examination of the record, the fact-finding of the court below is deemed justified and acceptable, and the determination that the Plaintiff's disease constitutes an occupational injury, based on such findings, also appears correct and consistent with the legal principles set forth above. There is no illegality, as argued in the grounds of appeal, in the form of erroneous fact-finding in violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principles concerning the burden of proof regarding occupational injury and causal relationship. The grounds of appeal are all without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are to be borne by the losing party. This judgment is rendered as stated in the Order by the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.

Justice Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice), Park Man-ho, Park Jun-seo (Justice in Charge), Kim Hyung-sun

【판결요지】

가. 산업재해보상보험법 제3조 제1항 소정의 “업무상의 재해”라 함은 근로자가 업무수행중 그 업무에 기인하여 발생한 재해를 말하는 것이므로 그 재해가 질병인 경우에는 업무와의 사이에 상당인과관계가 있어야 하고, 이 경우 근로자의 업무와 질병 사이의 인과관계에 관하여는 이를 주장하는 측에서 입증하여야 하는 것이지만, 그 인과관계는 반드시 의학적, 자연과학적으로 명백히 입증하여야만 하는 것은 아니고, 근로자의 취업당시의 건강상태, 작업장에 발병원인물질이 있었는지의 여부, 발병원인물질이 있는 작업장에서의 근무기간, 같은 작업장에서 근무한 다른 근로자의 동종 질병에의 이환 여부 등 제반 사정을 고려할 때 업무와 질병 사이에 상당인과관계가 있다고 추단되는 경우에도 그 입증이 있다고 보아야 한다.

나. 영업용택시 운전사의 두통, 배아픔, 구토증세 등을 업무상 질병으로 인정한 사례.

【참조조문】

산업재해보상보험법 제3조 제1항

【참조판례】

대법원 1992.5.12. 선고 91누10022 판결(공1992,2026), 1993.10.12. 선고 93누9408 판결(공1993하,3101) , 1994.6.28. 선고 94누2565 판결(공1994하,2135)

【주문】·【이유】 전문 1,532자 · 펼쳐 보기

【원고, 피상고인】

【피고, 상고인】 인천지방노동청장

【원심판결】 서울고등법원 1994.1.20. 선고 93구11977 판결

【주 문】

상고를 기각한다.상고비용은 피고의 부담으로 한다.

【이 유】 상고이유를 본다.

산업재해보상보험법 제3조 제1항 소정의 “업무상의 재해”라 함은 근로자가 업무수행 중 그 업무에 기인하여 발생한 재해를 말하는 것이므로 그 재해가 질병인 경우에는 업무와의 사이에 상당인과관계가 있어야 하고, 이 경우 근로자의 업무와 질병 사이의 인과관계에 관하여는 이를 주장하는 측에서 입증하여야 하는 것이지만, 그 인과관계는 반드시 의학적, 자연과학적으로 명백히 입증하여야만 하는 것은 아니고, 근로자의 취업당시의 건강상태, 작업장에 발병원인물질이 있었는지의 여부, 발병원인물질이 있는 작업장에서의 근무기간, 같은 작업장에서 근무한 다른 근로자의 동종 질병에의 이환 여부 등 제반 사정을 고려할 때 업무와 질병 사이에 상당인과관계가 있다고 추단되는 경우에도 그 입증이 있다고 보아야 할 것이다(당원 1993.10.12. 선고 93누9408 판결 등 참조).

원심판결 이유에 의하면 원심은, 거시증거에 의하여 그 판시와 같은 사실을 인정한 다음, 그 인정사실에 의하면, 1984년경부터 영업용택시 운전기사로 근무하여 오던 원고가 앓고 있는 두통, 배아픔, 구토증세 등의 정확한 의학적 원인이 밝혀져 있지 아니하고 LP가스 자체나 그 연소로 인한 일산화탄소에 노출된 것만으로 위와 같은 증상을 초래하기는 어렵다고 하더라도, 원고의 위 증상이 이 사건 택시의 소음기에서 매연가스나 LP가스의 냄새와 소음을 제거시키는 역할을 하는 촉매를 제거한 때로부터 시작되었고 그 때부터 위 택시에서 심한 가스냄새가 났던 점, 위 증상은 원고 뿐만 아니라 위 택시를 교대로 운전하던 소외인에게도 나타나고 있는 점, LP가스에는 원래의 성분 이외에도 불순물이 섞여 있어 그 불순물의 연소과정에서 나오는 유해가스도 위 택시에 스며들었을 것으로 보이는 점 등에 비추어 보면, LP가스에 포함되어 있는 불순물이 연소되는 과정에서 발생하는 유해가스가 그 성질상 위 두통 등의 원인이 될 수 없다는 점이 밝혀져 있지 아니하는 한 원고의 위 두통 등 증상은 위 택시의 운행으로 발생한 유해가스에 의해 발생하였거나 또는 그 증상이 악화되었다고 봄이 상당하고, 따라서 이는 업무상의 사유로 인한 질병으로 보아야 할 것이라고 판단하여 피고의 이 사건 요양급여 불승인처분을 취소하였다.

기록에 의하여 살펴보면 원심의 사실인정은 정당한 것으로 수긍이 가고, 또한 그 인정사실에 터잡아 원고의 위 질병이 업무상 재해에 해당한다고 한 판단 역시 위와 같은 법리에 따른 것으로 보여 옳고, 거기에 소론과 같이 채증법칙에 위배하여 사실을 잘못 인정하거나 업무상 재해 및 인과관계의 입증책임에 관한 법리를 오해한 위법이 있다고 할 수 없다. 논지는 모두 이유 없다.

그러므로 상고를 기각하고, 상고비용은 패소자의 부담으로 하기로 하여 관여 법관의 일치된 의견으로 주문과 같이 판결한다.

대법관 이용훈(재판장) 박만호 박준서(주심) 김형선

Related statutes

Similar cases

Cases with high content similarity to this one.

#1
2015구단76 · 광주지방법원 0001-01-01
Revocation of Disposition Denying Medical Care Benefits
#2
2015구단57690 · 서울행정법원 0001-01-01
요양일부불승인처분취소
#3
2013구단15722 · 서울행정법원 0001-01-01
Revocation of Disposition Denying Initial Medical Care Benef
#4
2008구단4742 · 서울행정법원 0001-01-01
Revocation of Disposition Denying Industrial Accident Medica
#5
2020구단16143 · 서울행정법원 0001-01-01
재요양급여불승인처분취소

Cases citing this decision

2006두8341 · 대법원 2006-09-22
Revocation of Disposition Denying Survivors' Benefits and Fu
99두10438 · 대법원 2000-01-28
Revocation of Disposition Denying Survivor Benefits, etc. (유
98두10103 · 대법원 1999-01-26
Revocation of Disposition Denying Lump-Sum Survivor Benefits
97누7011 · 대법원 1997-09-05
Revocation of Disposition Denying Survivors' Benefits, etc.
95누14633 · 대법원 1996-08-23
Revocation of Disposition Denying Medical Care Benefits

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)