[Plaintiff, Appellee]
[Defendant, Appellant] Chief of Uijeongbu Regional Labor Office, Attorney Cho Kyung-geun, Counsel for Defendant
[Intervenor for Defendant] Korea Development Bank, Administrator of Wonjin Rayon Co., Ltd. (in Reorganization)
[Judgment Below] Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu9731 rendered on March 19, 1993
[Order]
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of the appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
[Reasoning]
The Court examines the grounds of appeal submitted by the Defendant's litigation representative.
"Occupational injury" as provided in Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (산업재해보상보험법) means an injury that occurs to a worker in the course of performing his/her duties and is attributable to those duties. Accordingly, where the injury in question is a disease, or death resulting from a disease, there must be a proximate causal relationship between the work and the disease or death. In such a case, the burden of proving the causal relationship between the worker's duties and the disease or the death resulting therefrom lies with the party asserting it. However, such causal relationship need not necessarily be proven with medical or scientific certainty; rather, if, upon consideration of all relevant circumstances—such as the worker's state of health at the time of employment, whether the causative substance of the disease 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 reasonably be inferred that there is a proximate causal relationship between the work and the disease or the death resulting therefrom, such proof shall be deemed to have been established (see this Court's Decision 91Nu10022, rendered on May 12, 1992).
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, based on the evidence cited therein, found the following facts: the deceased non-party, who died of cerebral hemorrhage caused by hypertension, had no health problems whatsoever—including having blood pressure within the normal range—at the time he joined the non-party Wonjin Rayon Co., Ltd. on December 22, 1977; that for approximately six years, until he left the company on September 20, 1983, he worked in the Raw Material Section 2, an area with a high risk of exposure to carbon disulfide; that among his fellow workers at the same workplace, there were cases diagnosed with carbon disulfide poisoning; that the clinical symptoms that had persistently appeared in the deceased from shortly before he left the company until the time of his death—namely, hypertension, numbness in the hands and feet, and speech impairment—were consistent with the general symptoms of carbon disulfide poisoning patients as reported in the medical literature; that the coronary arteriosclerosis and glomerulosclerosis found in the deceased through the autopsy and tissue examination conducted after his death were consistent with the generally recognized pathological mechanism of carbon disulfide poisoning patients in the medical community; and that once biochemical changes begin due to carbon disulfide poisoning, the vascular lesions continue to progress even after exposure to carbon disulfide has ceased. Based on a comprehensive consideration of these findings, the court below determined that, in this case where there is no special circumstance suggesting that the deceased's hypertension, coronary arteriosclerosis, and glomerulosclerosis arose from any other cause, it may be inferred that the deceased's hypertension and other symptoms arose from carbon disulfide poisoning contracted in the course of his work in Raw Material Section 2 while employed at the said company; that, accordingly, it must be found that the deceased died as a result of the aggravation of his hypertension caused by the said carbon disulfide poisoning; and that, consequently, the deceased's death constitutes an occupational injury having a proximate causal relationship with the performance of his duties. Upon examination of the record, the relevant statutes, and the legal principles set forth above, the fact-finding and determination of the court below as described above are deemed justified and acceptable, and it cannot be said that there was any error in violation of the rules of evidence resulting in a mistaken finding of fact, or any error of law due to a misunderstanding of the legal principles concerning the causal relationship required for "occupational injury" under Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, as argued in the grounds of appeal. Therefore, the argument is without merit.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are to be borne by the losing party, in accordance with the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices, as set forth in the Order.
Justice Kim Ju-han (Presiding Justice), Justice Kim Yong-jun, Justice Cheon Gyeong-song (Justice in Charge)