1. If the full-time officer of a trade union is exempted from the original duties under a labor contract and the full-time officer of a trade union is subject to the collective agreement or the consent of a company that is an employer, such full-time officer’s duties are not activities related to the labor organization irrelevant to the employer’s business or the labor union activities or activities after entering a dispute in conflict with an illegal trade union activities or an employer, and thus, the full-time officer’s duties are closely related to the company’s labor management duties, and the employer is allowed to take charge of the company’s labor management duties instead of its original duties. Therefore, the accidents caused by the full-time officer’s duties during the course of performing the trade union duties or performing ordinary activities incidental thereto constitute occupational accidents under Article 5 subparag. 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du11418, Mar. 29, 2007). Such legal doctrine applies likewise to those accidents arising in the course of performing the trade union duties with the consent of an employer.

2. The reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveal the following facts.

A. The Plaintiff is serving as a manufacturing assistant preparation officer at the ○○○ Factory Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) and is in charge of the managing member of the instant company’s trade union ○○○ branch’s regular executive officer.

B. A collective agreement concluded with the instant company (hereinafter “instant collective agreement”) on April 1, 2012 with which the instant company’s trade union affiliated with a branch (hereinafter “the instant trade union”) entered into with the instant company (hereinafter “instant collective agreement”); “The instant company recognizes representatives, central committee members, audit committee members, and election management committee members as paid at the time of conference and conference (Article 8(3)); and where the instant association members, as recognized by the branch association, intend to participate in a conference or conference held by superior organizations (this Article, branch offices), and higher organizations, the branch association notifies the company of the date, time, place, and the list of participants, and it shall be deemed as a paid-in employee (Article 8(4)); the instant company recognizes it as working hours (Article 9(1), the Standing Committee (1) and the executive committee (12 days for each term of office) as a paid-in employee; the instant company provides for the approval of the use of part of the meeting’s office and office fixtures (Article 17(2) and the company’s office and office fixtures).

C. On October 5, 2012, at around 10:00, the Plaintiff participated in the Second Provisional Congress and the Standing Executive Committee of the Trade Union of the instant case, which was held in the second floor of the 2nd floor of the company’s Gwangju Factory Welfare Complex (hereinafter “instant meeting”). On October 5, 2012, the Plaintiff suffered from “the instant injury” (hereinafter “instant injury”) on the wind, which is vaining stairs to have reported materials.

D. The agenda items to be reported to the instant meeting are reported on the progress of the instant lawsuit regarding collective bargaining in 2012, and the election of the second delegates. The agenda items are the means to elect the representative of collective bargaining in 2012, to revitalize the activities of representatives, and the trade union schedule.

E. The instant meeting held that the instant company trade union had to bear its expenses, and the instant company provided a second-class room for the Gwangju Factory Welfare Complex, which is a company’s facility.

F. On September 28, 2012, the head of the ○○○ Branch of the instant company’s trade union notified the instant company of the list of participants present at the instant meeting, and requested the Plaintiff and other union executives to provide official leave. The instant company dealt with the Plaintiff, etc. as paid leave on October 5, 2012, which was the date of the instant meeting.

3. We examine these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier.

In light of the following circumstances revealed through the above facts: (a) the head of ○○○○○ Branch of the instant company notified the instant company of the list of the participants present at the meeting in advance pursuant to the collective agreement, and requested the company to provide official processing for the executives of the instant trade union including the Plaintiff, etc.; (b) the instant company provided paid leave to the participants including the Plaintiff, etc. and provided the place of the meeting; (c) the Congress and the Standing Executive Committee are recognized as working hours in the instant collective agreement; and (d) the Plaintiff, who is not full-time officer of the trade union, was attending the meeting of this case as a full-time executive officer of the instant trade union; (c) the Plaintiff, who is not a full-time officer of the trade union, was an employee of the instant company; and (d) the Plaintiff’s attendance at the meeting of this case constitutes an ordinary trade union, and thus, (e) the Plaintiff’s participation constitutes an occupational accident under Article 5 subparag. 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the injury of this case did not constitute occupational accidents on the ground that the Plaintiff, who is not a full-time officer, was closely related to the labor management affairs of the company of this case to the extent that he could not be seen as the business affairs of the company of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the recognition of occupational accidents by the executive officers of the trade union, who are not full-time officers of the trade union.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)