From August 1, 2019, ○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “○○○○”) held office as a worker in charge of customer company management and business management (the team leader) in AA Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the network”). From October 18, 2019, the Deceased was working as a worker in charge of customer company management and business management (the head of the team). From October 18, 2019, **** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 22 km, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “instant intersection”). The intersection was set up at the deceased’s own house to the office of the deceased, with the direction of a stop line installed on the front of 45 seconds, and the traffic accident was set up on the front of the passenger line to the direction of the intersection,* * the traffic accident was set up on the front of the passenger line with the deceased under direct control of the deceased* *.

After the occurrence of the instant traffic accident, the Deceased transferred to the Jeju Korean Hospital, but died of cerebral cerebral dys, etc. on October 18, 2019 (hereinafter “the instant accident”).

On November 28, 2019, the Plaintiff, a wife of the deceased, requested the Defendant to pay bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses. However, on February 25, 2020, the Defendant rendered a decision on the payment of bereaved family benefits and funeral funeral expenses (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”) on the ground that the main cause of the instant accident is confirmed to have been caused by the violation of the Act pursuant to Article 3(2)1 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents by the Deceased, on the ground that “the cause of the accident cannot be recognized as an occupational accident under the relevant Act and subordinate statutes due to the transfer or principal act of the deceased.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements or images, and the purport of the whole pleadings, as to Gap's evidence 1 to 7, 12, 15, 22

2. Relevant statutes;

Attached Form 1 is as listed in attached Table 1.

3. Determination on the legality of the disposition

A. The accident caused by a worker’s commuting to and from work on the normal route and manner constitutes “occupational accident” under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act”). As seen earlier, the instant intersection is located on the deceased’s normal work route. As such, the accident caused by the worker’s commuting to and from work by driving a car constitutes occupational accident, barring special circumstances.

B. However, the main text of Article 37(2) of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act provides that "the injury, disease, disability, or death caused by a worker's intentional act, self-harm, or a criminal act or a crime caused thereby shall not be deemed an occupational accident," and it is reasonable to interpret that "the act of a worker's criminal act is an accident caused solely or mainly by his/her own criminal act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du13079, Apr. 27, 2004)." The above-mentioned facts are acknowledged. Considering the following circumstances revealed by the aforementioned evidence and the overall purport of the statements, images, and arguments of evidence Nos. 13, 14, 20, and 23, and No. 3, the traffic accident of this case cannot be deemed to have occurred solely or mainly by the deceased's act of violating the signal No. 13, and the defect in the installation and management of the signal No. 13, etc. in this case can be deemed to have occurred.

In the case of the intersection of this case, the first week signal, etc. of the deceased’s driving direction cannot be seen as the first week signal, etc. in the view of the deceased, who stopped in accordance with the stop line, on the part of the stop line.

On the other hand, the south side of the intersection of this case is a structure that makes it difficult for the driver of the vehicle entering the north side to check the opposite direction through a wide range of seven-lanes from the north side. However, as shown in the image of the photograph, the second line, etc. are installed on the opposite direction, so it is highly likely for the driver to not be aware of the existence of the signal, etc., and even if the signal is recognized, it is highly likely to be adhered by the signal, etc. in other proceeding directions than his own direction.

According to the traffic signal installation manual 1, 2008 revised on November 1, 2008, the second class signal, etc. installed on the cross-section width shall be located in the center of the direction of the road, and the surface signal (signal light installed on the opposite direction) is prohibited from being installed. The reason why the installation of the surface signal, etc. is prohibited is because the driver does not discover signal, etc. when installing the surface signal, or it is highly likely that it can be perceived by signal, etc. in other proceeding directions, and the defendant joining the defendant is also investigating and replacing the surface signal installed in Jeju-do.

In the location where the deceased stops, the vehicle cannot be checked from the right side of the intersection of this case to the east (in the case of a building at the corner of an intersection, the view is restricted) and the traffic of the vehicles driving toward the right side from the same side to the west was cut before the deceased enters the intersection, so it is difficult for the deceased to determine whether to change the signal by examining the surrounding traffic conditions.

① Even in the disaster investigation report (No. B. 1), the Defendant’s accident investigation report on the instant traffic accident stated that “A is a disaster resulting from a collision with a bus operated in accordance with green signal, operated on the north to the west, without verifying the change of signals during the red signal signal at the 22 intersection in 19:0 p.m., 19, while driving a car at the interlock to the interlock office at his own home on October 18, 201,” the situation is stated as “a disaster resulting from a collision with a bus operated in accordance with green signal.”

In a situation where the traffic situation of a vehicle in another direction is not confirmed, it is difficult to find out the circumstances that the deceased would have to pass the intersection of this case while violating the signal in an unreasonable manner even though he/she is aware that it is a red signal.

D. Therefore, even if the deceased was partially negligent, so long as the instant accident cannot be deemed solely or mainly caused by the deceased’s criminal act, it does not constitute subject to the application of the main sentence of Article 37(2) of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act. Thus, the instant disposition is unlawful as it is not recognized as a ground for such disposition, and thus should be revoked.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Noh Jeong-soo

Judges Seo Young-woo