[2] In a case where a worker suffers from occupational accidents due to the act of the worker employed by the same employer, whether the worker is excluded from the "third party" under Article 54 (1) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (affirmative)

[3] The case holding that in case where Gap corporation, a policyholder under the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, ordered Eul corporation to contract for the electrical construction part of the building construction work performed by Eul, but did not dispute Eul's employees Byung and Eul's employees during the work process, and eventually caused injury by assaulting Eul, although the above accident constitutes occupational accident, it shall be excluded from the "third party" under Article 54 (1) of the same Act, as long as Eul is an employer who is in the status of insurance policyholder even if he is an employer under Article 9 (1) of the same Act, the case holding that Gap corporation's accident is excluded from the "third party" under Article 54 (1) of the same Act

[2] In a case where another worker's accident is recognized as an occupational accident due to a harmful act by a charged worker, such harmful act may be deemed as one of the risks of workplace, such as machinery and apparatus in the workplace. Thus, it is consistent with the nature of the industrial accident compensation insurance in which the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service should be ultimately liable for the occupational accident caused by realizing the risks. In addition, even in a case where a business owner is different, where a business owner's worker in another workplace has provided an insurance benefit to a worker in another workplace due to an accident, the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service (amended by Act No. 7049 of Dec. 31, 2003; hereinafter referred to as the "former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act") may not claim compensation against the injured worker or the business owner who is the employer pursuant to the proviso of Article 54 (1) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter referred to as the "former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act"), it is excluded from the category of "Article 54 (1) 3 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

[3] In a case where Gap corporation, a policyholder under the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 7049 of Dec. 31, 2003; hereinafter the same "former Industrial Accident Compensation Act"), ordered Eul to contract the electrical construction part of the building built by it, but did not dispute Eul's employees Byung and Eul during the work process, and ultimately, suffered bodily injury by assaulting Eul, the case holding that since disputes arising from lack of communication between workers on the work process at the construction site of a new building and the construction site of a new building, which are caused by lack of communication, are inherent in human relations or duties or risks accompanying ordinary work, proximate causal relation between the work and the accident is acknowledged, since it is acknowledged that there is a proximate causal relation between the work and the accident, as long as Gap corporation is the business owner who is an insured of the accident even without injury pursuant to Article 9 (1) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Byung who is an employee of the insurance company and non-victims, directly and indirectly, with the industrial accident compensation insurance relationship with Gap company as the insured.

1. A. The term “occupational accident” under the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 7049 of Dec. 31, 2003; hereinafter “former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act”) refers to an employee’s injury, disease, physical disability or death due to occupational reason. In a case where an employee suffers from an occupational accident due to another’s violence between the perpetrator and the victim, it cannot be deemed an occupational accident because it cannot be deemed as an occupational accident, if the employee causes an occupational accident due to a personal relationship between the perpetrator and the victim, or if the victim stimulates or attempts the other party beyond the limit of his/her duties, it cannot be deemed as an occupational accident, but if there is a proximate causal relation with his/her duties as a reality of risks inherent in or accompanying the human relations or duties in the workplace (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu857, Jan. 24, 1995).

B. (1) According to the reasoning of the first instance judgment as partially admitted by the lower court and the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court comprehensively based on the adopted evidence: (i) contracted the part of electrical construction among the construction works conducted by the insured under the former Industrial Accident Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as “stept Engineering”) to the non-party; (ii) the Defendants, a waterproof hole affiliated with the stept engineering, have a third party prevented access to the said parking lot to perform waterproof construction; (iii) the Plaintiff’s Intervenor employed by the non-party (hereinafter referred to as “the Nonparty”) committed an act of aiding and abetting the Intervenor’s act; and (iv) the Intervenor’s desire to commit an act of assisting the Intervenor; and (v) the Intervenor’s act of causing severe damage to the Defendant’s 1’s body at the time of the Plaintiff’s occurrence of an unstable injury to the Defendant; and (v) found the Intervenor’s injury to the Defendant’s 1’s body by means of unresting the Defendant’s 1’s body.

Furthermore, in light of the aforementioned circumstances, the lower court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity based on the premise that the instant accident constituted occupational accidents under the former Industrial Accident Compensation Act, on the ground that it is difficult to view it as an inherent in human relations or duties in the workplace or the reality of risks accompanying ordinary work, and that it is beyond a proximate causal relation with the business, although the instant accident was caused by a waterproof construction and electrical construction in the parking lot, even though both parties were able to engage in their desire.

(2) However, even based on the above facts found by the court below, the accident of this case is a dispute caused by lack of communication among workers on the method and order of progress at the construction site of a new building, and the risk inherent in, or ordinarily accompanying, human relations or duties in the workplace is realized. It cannot be deemed that there is a proximate causal relation between the business and the accident of this case, since the case arising from a private relationship between the Defendants and the Intervenor and the Intervenor, or the case where the Intervenor stimulates or attempted the other party beyond the scope of his duties.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on occupational accidents, on the sole basis of its reasoning as indicated in its holding.

2. A. However, in a case where another worker suffers from an occupational accident due to an act committed by a female worker, and the accident is recognized as one of the occupational accidents, such harmful act may be deemed as one of the risks of the workplace, such as the machinery, apparatus, etc. in the workplace. As such, deeming that the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service should be ultimately liable for the occupational accident caused by realizing the risk accords with the social insurance or liability insurance nature of the industrial accident compensation insurance. In addition, even in a case where a business owner is different even if an employee of a business owner is different, the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service provides insurance benefits to a worker suffering from an occupational accident due to an accident committed by another business owner, the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service should be deemed to exclude the worker from the “third party” as provided for in Article 54(1) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

B. Examining the aforementioned facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Defendants are employees belonging to the basin engineering, and the employees employed by the Nonparty, or the supplementary intervenor under Article 9(1) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, as long as the supplementary intervenor is a business owner who is also the insured under Article 9(1) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Act, the Defendants who are the workers, and the supplementary intervenor who is the victimized workers, are directly and indirectly engaged in the industrial accident compensation insurance relationship with the oil tower engineering, and are excluded from the “third party” under Article 54(1) of the former Industrial

C. Therefore, although the judgment of the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on occupational accidents as seen earlier, as long as the Defendants do not fall under a third party under Article 54(1) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Act, the court below's dismissal of the Plaintiff's claim is justified in its conclusion.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the Intervenor, while the remainder is assessed against the Plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)