요양급여불승인처분취소
The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. In cases where a worker suffers from a disaster while participating in an event or meeting outside of a company, if it is deemed that the overall process of the event or meeting is under the control or management of the employer, and the worker is in a state of not getting out of the net course of such event or meeting, the accident may be recognized as an occupational accident as prescribed by the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, in view of the circumstances such as the organizer, purpose, contents, number of participants, compulsoryness of the event or meeting, method of operation, burden of expenses, etc.;
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Du6717, Nov. 15, 2007; 2007Du6717, Nov. 15, 2007; 2007Du6717, etc.). In a case where an employee drinking in excess of his/her share of alcohol in the revolving process under the control or management of the employer and the employee suffered an accident
(See Supreme Court Decision 208Du9812 Decided October 9, 2008; Supreme Court Decision 2013Du25276 Decided November 12, 2015, etc.). The proximate causal relation between occupational accidents ought to be determined by taking into account various circumstances, including: (a) whether a business owner met or prevents an excessive drinking act; (b) whether an employee himself/herself himself/herself and voluntarily conducted excessive drinking; (c) the volume of drinking alcohol to other employees, other than the employees suffering from the disaster, is certain degree; (d) whether the occurrence of a disaster within the scope of ordinary risk associated with the ordinary process of a meeting related to the work; and (e) whether a disaster occurred through another abnormal route unrelated to the mental and physical disorder resulting from excessive drinking; and (e) whether the disaster occurred through an abnormal route unrelated to the
(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Du25276, Feb. 2, 2006). The lower court held that the instant accident, which the Plaintiff had been forced to drink at the time of the first round of drinking, was a voluntary doctor and fell from the stairs of the public entertainment building located on the second floor, is mainly in the state of getting out of the net course of the first round of drinking.