노동소송에서의 증명책임 완화 방안

In litigation, the burden of proof is a critical issue as it determines the outcome of a case when the existence of a fact is unclear. The allocation of this burden should be based on the “normative theory”, which allocates the burden according to legal statutes, as it dictates whether a legal effect occurs. This principle applies equally to administrative litigation and, due to the universal nature of legal proceedings, to labor litigation as well. However, due to the inequality inherent in labor relationships and the asymmetry of information and evidence, the allocation of the burden of proof according to the normative theory may fail to realize the purpose of labor law and the ideal of the social law. This necessitates a review of alleviating the employee's burden of proof, an approach that can also be examined from the perspective of the employer's duty to provide information. Discussions on alleviating the burden of proof shall consider unique characteristics of individual laws, such as those governing individual employment relationships, collective labor relations, and Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Law. Presumption of facts can serve as a means to resolve employee’s difficulties in proving their claims. However, when applying such method, it is necessary to emphasize the purpose of direct protection of employees in cases concerning individual labor relations law, and to prioritize the realization of substantive equality between labor and management in litigation concerning collective labor relation law. Litigation concerning occupational accidents must be considered in light of the multifaceted nature of the issues, which incorporates the principles of social law, the nature of administrative litigation, and the complexities of modern litigation. Particularly, in determining the causal relationship for occupational diseases, there is a need to ease the burden of proof by applying the Theory of Indirect Rebuttal. In relation to the application of factual presumption or the Theory of Indirect Rebuttal, statistical or epidemiological proof may be utilized, and in cases where the asymmetry of evidence is at issue, the active application of the Legal Principle of Obstruction of Proof becomes necessary. While it may be still difficult to generally accept a reversal of the burden of proof through judicial interpretation, legislative measures that appropriately distribute the burden of proof should also be considered for a fundamental resolution to the problem of difficulty in proof.