유족급여및장의비부지급처분취소
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. The cost of participation in the proceedings.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff’s husband B, who worked as a bus driver at the Daejin Passenger Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant’s assistant participant”), was killed due to a traffic accident that occurred while driving his Mart Motor Vehicle at around 06:06 on September 17, 2013 and serving as a bus driver.
(hereinafter “instant disaster”). (b)
The Defendant determined that the instant accident did not constitute commuting accidents included in occupational accidents under the current Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and rejected the Plaintiff’s request for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses on January 26, 2015, in light of the fact that B (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) was able to work at the taxi and its cost was KRW 39,600 per month.
(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was 06:04 time of the deceased on the date of the instant accident.
As the deceased could not arrive at the company in accordance with the time of dispatch with the use of public means of transportation such as buses and subways, it was inevitable to work at the company using private cars.
Therefore, the accident of this case constitutes occupational accident that occurred while attending work for private use under the circumstances where it is not possible to choose the method of commuting.
(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;
C. Determination 1-related legal principles generally have a close relationship between the worker’s commuting to and from work as a provision of labor.
Even if the method and route of commuting are reserved by an employee, the accident that occurred during his/her work can not be caused by an occupational accident on the ground that the employee's choice of the method and route is ordinary. However, the means of transportation provided by the employer are used by workers or a similar means of transportation.