Workbear재주넘는곰
대법원 93누9408

Revocation of Decision Denying Payment of Survivor Compensation Benefits유족보상금등지급청구부결처분취소

Decided1993. 10. 12. Court대법원Worker (family) 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 worker who had been engaged for six years in work with high exposure risk to carbon disulfide (이황화탄소) died of a cerebral hemorrhage caused by hypertension. The Supreme Court found a substantial causal relationship (상당인과관계) between his work and his death, ruling that the death qualified as an industrial accident (산업재해). As a result, the worker's family prevailed and became entitled to receive survivor compensation benefits (유족보상금).

Key takeaways
  • CaseA worker exposed to carbon disulfide for six years died of a cerebral hemorrhage caused by hypertension.
  • OutcomeThe Supreme Court recognized substantial causation between the work and the death, classifying it as an industrial accident and granting survivor compensation.
  • LessonEmployers should be aware that courts may infer work-related causation from overall circumstances even without definitive medical proof, especially in cases involving hazardous chemical exposure.
Issues
  • The burden and degree of proof required to establish causation between work and illness in industrial accident cases
  • Whether a substantial causal relationship exists between exposure to carbon disulfide in the workplace and death from hypertensive cerebral hemorrhage
Key reasoning

The Supreme Court held that causation in industrial accident cases need not be proven with absolute medical certainty; rather, a substantial causal relationship can be inferred by comprehensively considering all relevant circumstances. These circumstances include the worker's health condition at the time of employment, the presence of a causative substance in the workplace, the length of the worker's employment, and whether coworkers suffered from similar illnesses. Applying this standard, the Court found that the worker's hypertension was aggravated by carbon disulfide poisoning (이황화탄소 중독), ultimately leading to his death, and that this established a substantial causal relationship between his work and his death.

Summary of Decision (English, AI translation)

[1] "Occupational injury" as prescribed in Article 3(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (산업재해보상보험법) refers to an injury that occurs to a worker in the course of performing his duties and is attributable to such duties. Therefore, where the injury consists of a disease or death resulting from a disease, there must be a proximate causal relationship between the work and the disease or death, and the party asserting such causal relationship between the worker's work and the disease or the death resulting therefrom bears the burden of proving it. However, such causal relationship need not necessarily be clearly proven in a medical or scientific manner; even where it can be inferred, in light of all the relevant circumstances—such as the worker's state of health at the time of employment, whether there existed at the workplace a substance causing the onset of the disease, the length of the period during which the worker worked at the workplace where such causative substance existed, and whether other workers who worked at the same workplace contracted the same type of disease—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.

[2] A case holding that the death, from cerebral hemorrhage caused by hypertension, of a worker who was engaged in work with a high risk of exposure to carbon disulfide constituted an occupational injury.

Full text (English, AI translation) 5,068 chars

[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)

【판결요지】

가. 산업재해보상보험법 제3조 제1항 소정의 “업무상의 재해”라 함은 근로자가 업무수행중 업무에 기인하여 발생한 재해를 말하므로 재해가 질병 또는 질병에 따른 사망인 경우 업무와의 사이에 상당인과관계가 있어야 하고 이 경우 근로자의 업무와 위 질병 또는 위 질병에 따른 사망간의 인과관계에 관하여는 이를 주장하는 측에서 입증하여야 하지만, 그 인과관계는 반드시 의학적, 자연과학적으로 명백히 입증하여야만 하는 것은 아니고, 근로자의 취업 당시의 건강상태, 작업장에 발병원인물질이 있었는지 여부, 발병원인물질이 있는 작업장에서의 근무기간, 같은 작업장에서 근무한 다른 근로자의 동종 질병에의 이환 여부 등 제반 사정을 고려할 때 업무와 질병 또는 그에 따른 사망과의 사이에 상당인과관계가 있다고 추단되는 경우에도 입증이 있다고 보아야 한다.

나. 이황화탄소에 폭로될 위험이 높은 작업에 종사한 근로자가 고혈압에 의한 뇌출혈로 사망한 것이 업무상 재해에 해당한다고 본 사례.

【참조조문】

가.나.산업재해보상보험법 제3조 제1항 / 가. 행정소송법 제26조[입증책임]

【참조판례】

대법원 1989.7.25. 선고 88누10947 판결(공1989,1308), 1992.5.12. 선고 91누10022 판결(공1992,2026)

【주문】·【이유】 전문 1,711자 · 펼쳐 보기

【원고, 피상고인】

【피고, 상고인】 의정부지방노동사무소장 소송대리인 변호사 조경근

【피고보조참가인】 정리회사 원진레이온주식회사의 관리인 한국산업은행

【원심판결】 서울고등법원 1993.3.19. 선고 92구9731 판결

【주 문】

상고를 기각한다.

상고비용은 피고의 부담으로 한다.

【이 유】 피고소송대리인의 상고이유를 본다.

산업재해보상보험법 제3조 제1항 소정의 “업무상의 재해”라 함은 근로자가 업무수행중 그 업무에 기인하여 발생한 재해를 말하는 것이므로 그 재해가 질병 또는 질병에 따른 사망인 경우에는 업무와의 사이에 상당인과관계가 있어야 하고 이 경우 근로자의 업무와 위 질병 또는 위 질병에 따른 사망간의 인과관계에 관하여는 이를 주장하는 측에서 입증하여야 하는 것이지만, 그 인과관계는 반드시 의학적, 자연과학적으로 명백히 입증하여야만 하는 것은 아니고, 근로자의 취업 당시의 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 또는 그에 따른 사망과의 사이에 상당인과관계가 있다고 추단되는 경우에도 그 입증이 있다고 보아야 할 것이다(당원 1992.5.12. 선고 91누10022 판결 참조).

원심판결이유에 의하면 원심은 그 거시증거에 의하여 고혈압에 인한 뇌출혈로 사망한 망 소외인은 1977.12.22. 소외 원진레이온 주식회사에 입사할 당시에는 혈압이 정상 범위에 속하는 등 건강에 아무런 이상이 없었고, 1983. 9. 20. 위 회사를 퇴사할 때까지 약 6년동안 이황화탄소에 폭로될 위험이 높은 원액 2과 작업에 종사하여 왔으며, 같은 작업장에서 근무한 동료 근로자 중에도 이황화탄소 중독으로 판정된 사례가 있는 사실, 위 망인에게 위 회사 퇴사 직전부터 사망 당시까지 지속적으로 나타났던 고혈압, 손발저림, 발음장애 등의 임상증상이 의학계에 보고된 이황화탄소 중독환자의 일반적 증상과 부합할 뿐만 아니라 위 망인 사망후에 실시된 사체부검 및 조직검사 결과 위 망인에게 발견된 관상동맥경화증과 사구체경화증상은 의학계에서 공인된 이황화탄소 중독환자의 일반적 병리기전과 일치하는 사실, 이황화탄소에 일단 중독되어 생화학적 변화가 시작되면 이황화탄소 폭로가 중단된 이후에도 혈관병변이 계속 진행되는 사실 등을 인정한 다음, 위 인정사실을 종합하여 보면, 위 망인의 고혈압, 관상동맥경화증 및 사구체경화증이 다른 원인에 의하여 발생하였다는 특단의 사정이 엿보이지 않는 이 사건에 있어서, 위 망인의 고혈압 등은 위 회사 근무당시 원액 2과에서의 작업과정에서 발생한 이황화탄소에 중독되어 발생된 증상이라고 추단할 것이고, 따라서 위 망인은 위 이황화탄소 중독에 의한 고혈압이 악화되어 사망하기에 이르렀다고 보아야 할 것이므로, 결국 위 망인의 사망은 업무수행과의 사이에 상당인과관계가 있는 업무상 재해에 해당한다고 판단하였는바, 기록과 관계법령 및 위에서 본 법리에 비추어 보면 원심의 위와 같은 사실인정과 판단은 정당하다고 수긍이 가고 거기에 소론과 같은 채증법칙위배로 인한 사실오인이나 산업재해보상보험법 제3조 제1소정의 “업무상 재해”의 인과관계에 관한 법리오해의 위법이 있다고 할 수 없으므로 논지는 이유 없다.

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

대법관 김주한(재판장) 김용준 천경송(주심)

Related statutes

Similar cases

Cases with high content similarity to this one.

#1
92구9731 · 서울고법 1993-03-19
유족보상금등지급청구부결처분취소
#2
86누176 · 대법원 1986-09-23
Revocation of Disposition Denying Survivors' Benefits and Fu
#3
2010누36314 · 서울고등법원 0001-01-01
Revocation of Disposition Denying Survivors' Compensation an
#4
2013구합53677 · 서울행법 2016-01-28
Revocation of Disposition Denying Survivors' Benefits and Fu
#5
2020구합68363 · 서울행정법원 0001-01-01
Revocation of Disposition Denying Survivors' Benefits and Fu

Cases citing this decision

2003두12530 · 대법원 2004-04-09
Revocation of Non-Approval of Medical Care Benefits (요양불승인처분
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
98두12642 · 대법원 1998-12-08
Revocation of Disposition Denying Bereaved Family Benefits a
98두4740 · 대법원 1998-05-22
Revocation of Non-Approval of 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)