Litigation Performers;

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

B Co., Ltd. was awarded a contract for indoor wood official test (hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction”) among the construction works for the Haak-gun, Haak-gun, Gyeongbuk-gun.

On December 4, 2014: around 06: 45, in order to work as a wooden course at the site of the instant construction project, the Plaintiff driving a car with No. 29 0000 in Busan in the Dobong-gun in Busan in order to cause a traffic accident (hereinafter referred to as the “accident in this case”) involving the rear part of the truck prior to the entrance of the central expressway military tunnel.

On January 27, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits for the instant injury with the Defendant on January 27, 2015, alleging that he suffered injury (hereinafter referred to as “the instant injury”).

On March 27, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition not to approve the Plaintiff’s application for medical care benefits (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the instant accident does not constitute an accident that occurred during work under the control and management of the business owner, such as the means of transportation provided by the business owner or the means of transportation equivalent thereto, and thus, the instant injury and disease does not constitute an occupational accident.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant accident occurred when the Plaintiff worked in the middle of the salaryhouse to work as a tree at the construction site of this case in accordance with the direction of b00 by the representative of B, and the Plaintiff had a heavy construction section necessary for the work, and had no choice but to drive the vehicle to go to the middle of the morning. Therefore, the instant accident constitutes an occupational accident as it occurred during the work under the control and management of the business owner, and thus, the Defendant’s disposition of this case by viewing otherwise constitutes an occupational accident.

B. Determination

1) Workers’ commuting to and from work cannot be deemed to have been under the control and management of an ordinary employer due to the reservation of their method and route to and from work. Unless the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act has a special provision recognizing an accident that occurred during their commuting to and from work by ordinary method and route, accidents cannot be deemed to have occurred during their commuting to and from work solely on the ground that the employee’s choice of the method and route is ordinary. Therefore, in cases where workers use the means of transportation provided by the employer or make employers use the means of transportation corresponding to them in order to cause an accident during their commuting to and from work, the choice of the route is deemed to have been in operation during their commuting to and from work, but it cannot be deemed that there is no room for workers to choose the method of commuting to and from work due to the ordinary time of commuting to and from work, or the characteristics of the workplace, etc., and it cannot be deemed that it actually remains reserved and that it is closely indivisible to and from work under the control of the Supreme Court en banc Decision 200Du19758, Feb. 29, 2007

In full view of Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and Eul evidence Nos. 2 and the purport of the whole pleadings in the testimony of 00 witnesses, the plaintiff was on December 3, 2014, the day following the b00, the representative of Eul, who was the representative of the corporation B, while working as a day-to-day number at the tegical construction site located in the north of Changwon-si, Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

12. From April 4 to December 4, 2014, the Plaintiff received a request to cut off the instant construction site and consented thereto. At the time, Park 00 had a work tool, such as a compliance press, so that the Plaintiff may move the said vehicle to the construction site and start work on December 4, 2014 before the salary basin or to the construction site of the instant case, and promised to pay the Plaintiff oil expenses, road tolls, etc. required for the Plaintiff’s movement, and the Plaintiff, around December 4, 2014: around 50, at around December 4, 2014, instructed the Plaintiff to move the said vehicle to the construction site of the instant case and to start work on the same day: 06:45 square meters on the same day; and the Plaintiff cannot be recognized as having caused the instant accident.

In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff entered into an employment contract with B on December 4, 2014, stipulating that the Plaintiff will work as a tree on the site of the instant construction work from December 4, 2014, and on December 4, 2014, the instant construction work site: (a) the Plaintiff would drive the instant vehicle in the enclosed Station, which is the place directed by B B’s representative Park 00 to work on the site of the instant construction work site; (b) the Plaintiff started the business site located in Gangseo-gu with a considerable size under the direction of Park 00 and started the work site in Busan, and 08:0 - 009: (c) the Plaintiff would have not been closely related to the Plaintiff’s work to move the instant truck to the site of the instant construction work; and (d) it appears that there was no reasonable means to replace the vehicle for the Plaintiff to move the vehicle to the site of the instant construction work to the extent that the Plaintiff would not have to work at the site of the instant construction work; and (c) it appears that the Plaintiff would not have been using the instant truck to work site of Busan.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case based on the premise that the accident of this case was not caused by the occupational reason is unlawful.

2) The Defendant asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff, a daily worker who frequently moved from various construction sites, has no room to recognize an accident that occurred during his/her work as an occupational accident. However, the Plaintiff’s control and management of the Plaintiff’s work process at the time of the instant accident cannot be denied solely on the ground that the Plaintiff is a daily worker. Therefore, the Defendant’s allegation is rejected

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim shall be accepted with due reason, and it is so decided as per Disposition.