Attorney ○-○, et al.

Representative ○○○○

Litigation performer ○○○

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

3. On July 25, 201, "B" in paragraph 1 of the order of the court of first instance is corrected to " July 27, 201".

On July 27, 2011, the defendant revoked the disposition not to grant medical care to the plaintiff on July 27, 201 (the complaint's "written complaint").

25. "A" seems to be a clerical error in July 27, 201.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is that “B” was stated in Section 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance except for “B” on July 27, 2011, and “B” on July 27, 2011, and “B” on July 4, 201, in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff was involved in the accident of this case due to the failure in the bicycle brake system while working at the dormitory of a company near the office as a bicycle provided and managed by the business owner. This constitutes an accident due to the defect in the facility or negligence in the management of the business owner, such as the use of a means of transportation provided by the business owner under Article 37(1)1 (c) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, or the occurrence of an accident due to the defect in the facility or negligence in the management of the facility during the use of the facility provided by the business owner under Article 37(1)1 (b) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act. Thus, the disposition of this case on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 3 is as shown in the "relevant Acts and subordinate statutes".

다. 인정사실 ( 1 ) 원고가 근무하고 있는 은 ◆◆◆의 협력업체로서 충남 당진군 ㅁㅁㅁ 소재 ◆◆◆ 공장의 울타리 안에 사무실이 있다 . ( 2 ) ○○은 2011. 3. 1. 위 사무실 인근의 ■■■ △△△ A동 206호를 원고 명의로 임차한 후, 이를 원고를 포함한 소소 근로자들 중 일부의 숙소로 제공하였다 . ( 3 ) 원고의 근무시간은, 통상근무를 할 경우에는 08 : 30부터 17 : 30까지이고, 3교대 근무를 할 경우에는 07 : 00부터 15 : 00까지 ( 1근 ) 와 15 : 00부터 23 : 00까지 ( 2근 ) 및 23 : 00부터 다음날 07 : 00까지 ( 3근 ) 인바, 원고는 이 사건 사고 당일에 통상근무를 하기 위해 08 : 30까지 출근해야 했다 .

(4) For the purpose of the workers’ on-site moving, going out, and going out, and going out, and provide a bicycle to workers. Workers including the Plaintiff used the bicycle provided when going out and going out of the company’s lodging place to office.

[ 인정근거 ] 갑 제1, 2호증 ( 각 가지번호 포함 ), 이 법원의 ▲▲▲에 대한 사실조회결과, 변론 전체의 취지

D. Determination

Article 37 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8694 of Dec. 14, 2007 and enforced on July 1, 2008; hereinafter the same shall apply) newly established Article 37 provides that "an accident that occurs during commuting to work under the control and management of the business owner, such as the use of a means of transport provided by the business owner or a similar means of transport, shall be deemed an accident on duty if an employee suffers an injury, disease, or disability or dies, and Article 29 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 20875 of Jun. 25, 2008) provides that "an accident occurred during commuting to work or any means of transport that can be deemed to have been provided by the business owner," and Article 37 of the same Act provides that "an accident that occurs during commuting to work or the exclusive right to use means of transport under Article 37 (1) 1 (c) of the same Act shall not meet the requirements for commuting to work."

이 사건에서 보건대, 위 인정사실 및 거시증거에 변론 전체의 취지를 더하여 인정할 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 사업주인 은 사무실 인근의 ■■■ △△△ A동 206호를 임차하여 원고를 포함한 소속 근로자들 중 일부의 숙소로 제공하는 한편, 위 숙소에서 사무실까지의 출 · 퇴근에 이용하도록 자전거를 구입하여 근로자들에게 제공한 점, ② 원고는 위 숙소에서 사무실로 출 · 퇴근함에 있어 시간 단축이나 편의성을 위해 에서 제공한 자전거들을 이용하였는데, 그 자전거들은 원고를 비롯한 특정의 근로자에게 개별적 · 전속적으로 제공된 것이 아니라 이 이를 소유하면서 부품의 구입 등 관리까지 해 온 것인 점, ③ 위 숙소에서 오오 사무실까지 출 · 퇴근함에 있어서는, 시내버스 등 다른 교통수단을 이용하는 것이 우회길이어서 더 불편한 반면, 자전거를 이용하여 ◆◆◆ 담장 옆길을 통과하는 것이 최단거리로서 시간이 단축되었고, 이 사건 사고 당시에도 원고는 위 자전거를 이용하여 위 담장 옆길을 통과하다가 사고를 당한 것인 점, ④ 이 사건 사고의 주된 원인은 에서 제공한 위 자전거의 제동장치 고장으로 인하여 내리막길에서 속도를 줄일 수 없어 ◆◆◆ 담장을 충돌하게 된 것인 점 등을 종합하면, 이 사건 사고는 산업재해보상보험법 제37조 제1 항 제1호 다목 소정의 ' 사업주가 제공한 교통수단이나 그에 준하는 교통수단을 이용하는 등 사업주의 지배관리 하에서 출 · 퇴근 중 발생한 사고 ' 에 해당한다고 할 것이다 .

Therefore, the instant injury and disease constitutes occupational accidents, and thus, the instant disposition taken on a different premise is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and thus the defendant's appeal is dismissed, and it is obvious that " July 25, 201" in the disposition of the court of first instance is a clerical error in the judgment of the court of first instance as of July 27, 201, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Jong-tae

Judges Kim Yong-name