업무상 재해의 요건과 인과관계의 증명책임

The Requirement of Industrial Accident and Burden of Proof

대법원 2021. 9. 9. 선고 2017두45933 전원합의체 판결에 대해서는 아쉬움이 많다. 우선 법제사법위원회의 체계·자구심사보고서에는 산업재해보상보험법 제37조 제1항을 현재의 규정과 같이 정한 이유에 대해 분명히 업무와 재해 사이에 상당인과관계가 없는 것을 공단이 증명하는 것으로 기재되어 있음에도 불구하고 해당 내용을 지나치게 무시하고 있다. 무엇보다, 이 사건 판결은 ‘업무관련성’과 ‘상당인과관계’를 업무상 재해의 요건 사실로 파악하는 것으로 보이는데, 이에 관한 논의는 거의 이루어지지 않고 있다. 그런데 현행법상 ‘출퇴근 재해’가 업무상 재해의 하나로 추가된 이상 업무관련성으로 이러한 내용을 모두 포섭하기는 어렵다. 따라서 업무상 재해로 인정되기 위한 요건은 ① 근로자가 부상·질병 또는 장해가 발생하거나 사망할 것, ② 산재보험법 제37조 제1항 각호의 사실이 존재할 것, ③ ①과 ②의 요건 사이에 상당인과관계가 존재할 것, 이렇게 3가지라고 하면 그것으로 필요·충분하며, 증명책임의 분배에 관한 법률요건분류설에 따를 때, 이 중 근로자 측은 ①과 ②에 해당하는 내용을 증명해야 하고, 그 경우 공단측에서 ③의 요건의 부재를 증명하지 못하면 업무상 재해로 인정해야 한다고 보는 것이 규정의 표현에 맞는 해석이라고 할 것이다.

The recent Supreme Court en banc decision (2017du45933) maintained the legal principle of the existing precedents of the Supreme Court as they were. That is, the legal principle that workers must prove a proximate causal relation between their duty and the accident in order for an accident to be recognized as an accident on duty in cases related to industrial accident compensation insurance was reconfirmed. However, it is difficult to agree with the conclusion as such. As mentioned by the majority opinion in the judgment above, the main purpose of the enactment of the proviso to Article 37 Paragraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act was to make it clear that a proximate causal relation between the duty and accident is necessary for all types of accidents but since the reason for the revision in the report on the review of the system and wordings of the National Assembly Legislation and Judiciary Committee at the time had the explicit written intent that, in cases where the Corporation proves that there is no proximate causal relation between the duty and the accident, the accident cannot be regarded as an accident on duty in the criteria for recognition of accident on duty, it is clear that the intention of the legislator is to have the Korea Workers' Compensation & welfare Service, not the employee, prove that there is no proximate causal relation between the duty and the accident. This is also the case even when the proviso is analyzed from the position of the legal requirement classification theory for the distribution of burden of proof. In addition, when the purpose of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act is examined, it can be seen that it is a law to protect people who are engaged in work at the industrial site. Therefore, unilaterally imposing the burden of proof, which is a core requirement for the recognition of accident on duty, does not fit the intent of the industrial accident compensation insurance as a social security system and the purpose of granting the authority to investigate accidents to the Corporation. Therefore, as the four Supreme Court judges argued in this judgment, it is reasonable to have the Korea Workers' Compensation & welfare Service prove the proximate causal relation between the duty and the accident, not the workers.