Busan

Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 2 A 94-267

Service Place: 3 Jung-gu, Jung-gu, Seoul Ga 60-1 extreme building 19 floors

Representative Shin Young-chul

Attorney Lee In-bok

1. On September 4, 2007, the court below cited the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and found that the plaintiff, who is a member of the environmental U.S. dollars belonging to the Gu, was present at the district unit belonging to the Gu for early cleaning, and then was present at the work site at around 05:40 on September 4, 2007, and it was in conflict with the vehicle that was going to go beyond the road and went beyond the road in order to move to the workplace at around 06:0 on around 00, in order to move to the work site, it is difficult to determine that the work site at the district unit was in cooperation with the worker in order to confirm whether the business owner goes to work at the environment U.S. Won, and it was difficult to determine that the accident occurred during the work site at the district unit due to the above fact that the plaintiff did not go to work at the workplace and did not take the right to use or leave the road in question for the reason that the accident occurred during the work site.

2. However, it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

Article 5 (1) 1 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8694, Dec. 14, 2007; hereinafter the same) provides "accident in the course of business" refers to an accident resulting from ordinary personal activities, such as the performance of the relevant work, preparation for and completion of the work, under the control and management of the business owner, which are accompanied by the work under the labor contract between the worker and the business owner (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Du12572, Sept. 28, 2007; hereinafter the same shall apply). The term "accident in the course of performing the work" refers to the repeated act that a worker in the middle of his/her place of work provides his/her labor by means of a reasonable social norm and route, in order to provide his/her labor.

원심 이 인정한 사실 관계 에 의하면, 원고 는 이 사건 사고 당일 조기 청소 를 위해 집 에서 나와 ●● ■ 구 산하 지구대 에 도착 하여 출근 확인 을 받은 후 작업 장소 로 가다가 사고 를 당 하였고, 위 자전거 는 원고 가 ●● ■■ 구로 부터 출 · 퇴근 및 청소 담당 구역 내 이동 에 필요한 교통 수단 을 제공 받지 못한 관계 로 원고 스스로 마련 하여 ●● ■■구의 묵인 아래 출 · 퇴근 및 작업 장소 로 의 이동 에 이용 하여 왔다는 것 인바, 사정 이 이러 하다면, 앞서 본 법리 에 비추어 원고 는 사업 주인 구의 지배 · 관리 아래 에 있는 지구대 에 도착 하여 출근 확인 을 받음 으로써 출근 이 완료 되었다고 봄 이 상당 하고 , 그 후 실제 작업 장소 로 의 이동 은 업무 수행 그 자체 는 아니더라도 청소 업무 의 특성상 업무 수행 에 필수적 으로 수반 되는 업무 의 준비 행위 에 해당 한다고 보아야 할 것이다 .

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the instant accident was a disaster that occurred during the attendance at work, and that it does not constitute an occupational accident. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on occupational accidents under the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the original court is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court of original instance for further proceedings consistent with all participating Justices who reviewed the appeal.

It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon

Justices Min Il-young

Justices Lee In-bok et al.