2. B

1. Where a worker suffers from an accident while using a facility managed by the employer or while performing a certain act within the facility after the end of business hours, the process of such act can be recognized as an occupational accident if it is deemed that the worker's act is under the control and management of the business owner, such as the worker's act of performing his/her own business or preparing or arranging his/her business, an act deemed to be a physiological act or necessary under social norms, an act involved in an event held under the employer's direction or sponsor, rules of employment, collective agreement, or other customary practices, or it is deemed that he/she suffered from an accident due to a defect in the facility or care of the business owner (Supreme Court Decisions 95Nu14633 delivered on Aug. 23, 196; 9Da4630 delivered on Apr. 4, 199).

9. See Supreme Court Decision 99Du189, etc.)

2. The court below acknowledged, based on its adopted evidence, that the deceased C (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party C") died from the fire of this case at the accommodation of this case, which was provided to his employees, including the deceased, on holidays. The court below determined that: (a) the accommodation of this case was owned by the non-party company and provided for long-distance workers; (b) the non-party company had a house, such as cooling and cooling, and paid public charges to the accommodation of this case; (c) the non-party company had been living together with five workers assigned by the non-party company at the time of the occurrence of the fire of this case; and (d) other workers had a characteristic as a private space after the retirement of the non-party company, such as from time to time, from time to time; (b) the deceased was on duty at the weekend, and the deceased was on behalf of other employees; and (d) the fire of this case also fell under the act of management or management of the deceased's work of this case on the ground of social norms or reasonable management of the deceased's work.

3. However, we cannot agree with the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the deceased, who was residing in the Chungcheongnambuk-gun, was living in the instant accommodation that was purchased by the non-party company for the convenience of commuting to and from work of his employees, and the deceased, from around 19:30 on January 7, 2012, who was on holidays, 2: (a) from around 30, 19:5, the deceased was living in the instant accommodation, and (b) around 01:0 on January 8, 2012, 200 and was d, E, and e, who were living together in the instant accommodation; (c) on the same day, 02:30 on the same day, 00 other workers who were locked at the instant accommodation but were living in the instant accommodation at the time when the fire occurred, but the deceased did not evacuate.

(3) As a result of the investigation into the instant fire, it was found that it was impossible to specify the specific cause of the fire, but it was found that the possibility of the outbreak of a cigarette, etc. could not be excluded; 4. The instant accommodation is located at a distance of about 900 meters from the place of business outside the lawsuit; and the Nonparty Company, upon the employee’s request, moved into the instant accommodation in a first-come-servedly and first-served manner in consideration of the number of accommodations, etc.; 5 at the instant accommodation at the time of the instant fire; and 5 at the time of the instant accident; however, the Nonparty Company was living together at the instant accommodation; and the use and access of the fire, etc. were freely accessible to other employees; 6. Meanwhile, the Deceased was not scheduled to work on the Sundays on duty, etc. on which the fire occurred.

The following facts revealed by the deceased’s factual basis, i.e., (i) the hours after completion of work are basically private areas of workers, and the worker’s free use of the premises after completion of work is difficult to view that such activities are under the control and management of the business owner, barring special circumstances. It is difficult to view otherwise solely on the ground that such activities were conducted at the workplace provided by the business owner, and (ii) the accident of this case occurred during the deceased’s private absence of alcohol on holidays, and it is difficult to view that the act of the deceased at the time of the accident falls under the original act of the work, preparation or reorganization of the work, or acts incidental thereto under social norms, or acts incidental thereto, even if it is difficult to view that the work of this case was performed by the non-party company to get out of the work site or to freely get out of the work site, and it is difficult to see that the accident of this case was caused by the non-party company’s temporary absence of access to or use of the work site.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the instant accident constituted occupational accidents solely on the basis of the aforementioned circumstances. In so determining, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on occupational accidents, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee In-bok et al.

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Justices Kim Gin-young