Masan City OOdong*-*

Law Firm ○○, Attorneys Song-young, et al.

Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 2 Aepo-dong 94-267

Busan East-ro 430 Maleto City Pacific Building 8 floors at the city of Dong-gu Busan-ro

Representative President KimO

Litigation performer Doo-○

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence No. 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

A. At around 06:15 on January 12, 2008, the plaintiff applied for medical care by asserting that the plaintiff's injury to the defendant is an accident at work and constitutes an occupational accident, and the defendant applied for medical care on the ground that the injury of the plaintiff who suffered from an accident at work does not fall under an occupational accident, etc., on the ground that the plaintiff's injury at work does not fall under an occupational accident.

2. Facts recognized;

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 11, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including each number), the testimony of the witness Song-gu, the plaintiff's principal questioning result, the plaintiff's branch office of Item A Korea Co., Ltd., the fact-finding results of each fact-finding with respect to the Mapo-gu bus council, the purport of the whole pleadings

A. On November 18, 1992, the Plaintiff entered Korea Co., Ltd. (the trade name at the time of entry shall be a large-scale terminal corporation; hereinafter referred to as “the Plaintiff”) and worked in the original branch located in the Changwon Corporation until the instant accident occurred.

Changwon Branch is an enterprise that vicariously carries out logistics inspection and delivery work, such as transportation of parts or materials supplied to factories such as GM treatment vehicles, efficacy, and large forests located in the Changwon Industrial Complex, and the Plaintiff was in charge of the classification of goods to be delivered and the loading work.

B. The Plaintiff’s working hours are 08:00 to 17:00 under the labor contract, but, as the goods to be sent to the GMF car consisting of most of the goods delivered by the HMF branch should be classified into new walls or a part that led to the commencement of work, and the delivery should be completed before the commencement of work of the GMF car, even if two to three months have elapsed from the date of the instant accident, not only the owner of the land in charge of driving the delivery truck, but also the workers in charge of the classification of goods and the loading and unloading, including the Plaintiff, should work from 05:0 to 06:00 according to the volume of the goods handled.

Since then, the original branch office in order to reduce the quantity to be delivered to the employees, including the deceased, shall work for up to 07:00, but on the other hand, the owner of the land and the employees of the owner of the land shall work for up to 06:30 on the ground that the distribution classification work is late, and the distribution classification work begins to work for up to 06:30. The owner of the land and the employees of the owner of the land, including the plaintiff, were required to work for the hours of the work of the owner and the employees of the plaintiff, etc., regardless of the time of retirement specified in the employment contract.

C. A bus route (102) is located near the Plaintiff’s residence, but even if the first vehicle is used, the bus stops arrive at around 06:05 to 06:15 square meters away from the EL original branch office to the bus stops, and at that place, about 10:15 minutes away from the original branch office to the logistics processing site of the original branch office. At that time, when the Plaintiff was able to work by using a route bus but it was impossible to work by 05:0 to 06:00,000, when it was possible for the Plaintiff to work by using a route bus, and even when using a personal vehicle, etc. other than a route bus, it was impossible for the Plaintiff to work by using a taxi. The time required for the Plaintiff’s work is about 40-50 minutes and it was difficult for the Plaintiff to work by using the taxi. The accident site of this case, the time of the accident, the Plaintiff’s commuting for the optimal convenience of operation, and its location at the lowest route for the Plaintiff’s work.

D. The Plaintiff worked at the early stage of his residence, from around 200 to March 2007, when he was employed by the head of his branch office, from the head of his residence, to from around 2000 to from around 3, 2007. Around one year thereafter, the Plaintiff was employed as part of the oil cost of his employee, by the Plaintiff’s employee, and by disposing of the abolition that occurred after the distribution process, the head of his employee was aware of such circumstances. The head of his original branch, who was working for 3-4 months from the date the instant accident occurred, was the Plaintiff’s employee, who was the owner of his employee. The head of his residence was the head of his employee’s residence to get off and get off the cargo of his employee, who was the owner of his employee, and the head of his employee did not regularly pay the Plaintiff the Plaintiff’s share of his employee’s cargo to the head of his employee, but did not pay the Plaintiff’s share of his employee’s cargo to the head of his office at the time.

3. The judgment of this Court

A. Under the control and management of a business owner, such as the means of transportation provided by the business owner or a means of transportation equivalent thereto, accidents that occur during his/her work constitute occupational accidents (Article 37(1)1 (c) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act), and generally, as long as the method and route of commuting are reserved to an employee, accidents that occur during his/her work cannot be deemed occupational accidents solely on the ground that the employee’s choice of workplace is ordinary. However, if commuting process is deemed to be under the control and management of the business owner, accidents that occur during his/her work can be deemed to constitute occupational accidents (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2005Du12572, Sept. 28, 2007; 200Du12572, Sept. 28, 2007; 200Du14786, Sept. 28, 200).

B. In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s work hours are about 40 to 50 minutes of the freight lane for the Defendant’s arrival, i.e., the Plaintiff’s work hours. If the Plaintiff’s work hours are about 05:0-6:00, there was no means of public transportation that can temporarily commute to and from work hours without using a taxi. At the time of the accident, the Plaintiff started work at around 06:30, but the Plaintiff’s work hours were about 2:0 to 06:00 before the date of the accident, which was about 05:0,06:00, the Plaintiff’s work hours could be left to and from work at any time due to the increase in the quantity, and the Plaintiff’s work hours could not be deemed to be the best time for the Plaintiff’s work hours due to the lack of public transportation means that led to the Plaintiff’s refusal to leave from work due to the Plaintiff’s demand to leave from work for a long time, and thus, the Plaintiff’s work hours could not be considered to leave from work.

4. Conclusion

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