일본에서의 업무상 재해의 상당인과관계 증명책임에 관한 고찰

Regarding the interpretation of Article 37 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act on the recognition criteria of occupational accident, while the court has been in the position that the burden of proof of proportionate causal relation is on the plaintiff's side, it raises the question whether the Article 37 stipulates the change of the burden of proof. This study introduces the Japanese perspectives on the issue. In case of Japan, unlike Korea, the Labor Standards Act and the Workers’ Compensation and Insurance Act do not have detailed provisions regarding the recognition criteria of occupational accident. As for the detailed requirements of the recognition criteria of occupational accident, the interpretation by the public administration and court have the entire authorities. It is same with the burden of proof attestation when a lawsuit against a occupational accident is raised. In Japan, The theory of proximate causal relation is applied regarding the concept of occupational accident. Japan's practice on the insurance of occupational accident is governed by the Labor Standards Authority Directorate, and the appeal against the decision by the Chief on the non-payment of insurance benefits leads to administrative litigation. As the burden of proof on the proximate causal relation is debated during the administrative litigation regarding the repeal against non-payment decision of benefits of occupational insurance, it is interpreted that the burden of proof and claim is on the plaintiff’s side who claims for compensation as the proximate causal relation is the factual requirement for the occurrence and establishment of compensation claims and this case is a appeals suit seeking cancellation of rejection of the beneficial decision. There have been precedents in administrative litigation in which a judgment was made to mitigate the burden of proof for reasons such as the lack of rationality in the examination standards of the administrative office, the mistake, and the impossibility of failure to notice of defect, Moreover, there have often been argued over the transfer or reduction of the burden of proof due to the limitation of accessibility by the maldistribution of evidence, the responsibility of lost evidence, or the equity of the persons involved. However, without the clear stipulation, it can be confirmed that the Japanese court is taking a negative stance toward the shift of the burden of proof of proximate causal relation in the end. It also seems that the administrative office is passive regarding the shift of burden of proof as it is the matter of legislation. However, the issue of insurance finance, which is one of the reasons for opposing the shift of the burden of proof, is unlikely to be considered as a decisive reason in light of the actual financial situation or the current state of the occupational accident. As mentioned above, considering that it is negative on the shift of burden of proof regarding proximate causal relation even in Japan which is based on a similar legal system to Korea, it would not be easy to interpret that the Article 37 of the current Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act stipulates a shift of the burden of proof regarding the proximate causal relation.