상해보험에서 인과관계와 증명책임

Abstract

The ruling deals with a case in which a dead person is diagnosed with spinal disorders and dementia at a hospital after a fall, and the airway is blocked during a meal. He usually suffered from myocardial infarction. In this case, it became an issue that the evaluation of impairment of various hospitals conducted to judge the causal relation between the accident and the result of the disability and death of the insured in the casualty insurance contract joined by the plaintiff. In order to judge the disability caused by the disaster, the court of first instance designated one hospital and applied for a fact inquiry. The causal relation between the fall accident and the disability of the deceased was denied because of the result of the fact inquiry of the hospital and the dead person’s previous symptoms. The Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court accepted the judgment of the Court of First Instance. However, it is difficult to understand the judgment of the court that there is no causal relation between the fall accident and the disability without various evidence collection procedures. On the other hand, the first court and the appellate court ruled that there is a direct connection between the suffocation and death of the dead man, while the Supreme Court denied it and ordered the reversal. The opinions of the hospital and the National Forensic Service, which judged the cause of death of the deceased, were contradictory. In addition, the results of the fact-finding of two hospitals conducted during the proceedings were also contradictory. Nevertheless, the decision to conclude that the cause of death was suffocation in the lower court trial is not convincing. In this way, despite the fact that the results of fact-finding of various hospitals in relation to the disability and death of the deceased are incompatible with each other, it is beyond the limit of free evaluation of evidence that the court ruled without observing the empirical or logical laws and ignoring the evidence trial. Therefore, I am in favor of the Supreme Court's order of reversal on the death caused by the disaster of the lower court, but I am opposed to the acceptation of the lower court's decision on the claim for disability.