[1] Requirements for an accident that occurred during departure or withdrawal from office to constitute "occupational accident" under Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

[2] The case holding that the above death constitutes an occupational accident in case where a forest fire inspector for daily duty who worked aboard a rockban dies due to a traffic accident

[1] The term "occupational accidents" under Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to occupational accidents caused by the worker's performance of the pertinent work or the ordinary activities incidental thereto under the control and management of the employer under an employment contract with the employer. The accidents caused by the worker's departure and retirement are closely and unreasonably related to the business of providing labor, even though the worker's departure and retirement are closely related to the business of providing labor, in general, it cannot be said that the employer's choice is reserved to the worker, and therefore, it cannot be said that the worker's departure and retirement process is under the control and management of the employer, such as the worker's use of the means of transportation provided by the employer to become occupational accidents or the employer's use of the means of transportation corresponding thereto.

[2] The case holding that in a case where a forest fire supervisor for one-time duty was on duty and died due to a traffic accident, in which the deceased was employed on the condition that he was engaged in a forest fire surveillance duty by using his inner part of his own, and there was no means of public transportation that can arrive at according to the working hours from his office to his office, and the deceased’s forest fire surveillance area was considerably wide, making it difficult for the deceased to perform his duties by using a bulletin or bicycle, and the course of his choice for the deceased to work at his office from his office is the lowest route, and the deceased’s death can be deemed as an occupational accident, in light of the following:

[1] Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Article 35 (4) subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act / [2] Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Article 35 (4) subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the

[1] Supreme Court Decision 95Nu6946 delivered on September 15, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3435), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu1679 delivered on February 9, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 982), Supreme Court Decision 97Nu1309 delivered on November 14, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 380), Supreme Court Decision 99Da2474 delivered on September 3, 199 (Gong199Ha, 2049)

Plaintiff (Attorney Park Jong-woo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 2004Nu25689 delivered on April 7, 2005

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

1. Summary of fact-finding and judgment of the court below

In full view of the evidence adopted by the court below, the non-party who is the deceased's husband (hereinafter referred to as "the non-party"), was employed on February 15, 204 by using the same method as that of the deceased's office, and was employed as the forest fire supervisor on February 21 of the same year, the court below determined that the non-party was unable to use the deceased's office for the above 0th day on which the fire was occupied by the deceased's 20th day on which it was difficult to use the forest fire for the deceased's office for the above 0th day on which the fire was occupied by the owner of the above 1st day on which the fire was occupied by the deceased's 1st day on which the fire was occupied by the deceased's office, and that the fire was occupied by the owner of the above 1st day on which the fire was occupied by the deceased's 7th day on which the fire was occupied by the owner's 4th day on which the fire was occupied by the deceased's 1st day on which the deceased's 4th day.

2. Judgment of the Supreme Court

However, we cannot accept the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

The term "occupational accidents" under Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to accidents caused by the worker's performance of duties or ordinary activities incidental thereto under the control and management of the employer under an employment contract with the employer. The accidents caused at the time of departure or retirement of the worker, even though they are closely related to the business of providing labor, shall not be deemed to be under the control and management of the employer because the choice of the means of departure or retirement and the route is reserved to the worker, and therefore, it shall be deemed that the worker's departure or retirement process is under the control and management of the employer, such as the worker's use of means of transportation provided by the employer or the employer's use of means of transportation corresponding thereto, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 9Du9025 delivered on December 24, 199).

According to the facts duly established by the court below and records, the deceased was employed on condition of performing forest fire surveillance duties using his own soil on his own, and it is inevitable for the deceased to attend work using soil on his own because the distance of work from the deceased's office to his office is about 15 km and there is no means of public transportation that can arrive at the work hours. The deceased shall not directly attend work on his own, but on his own, it shall record and report the work status of the preceding day to his office at his office on his own, and after receiving instructions from the person in charge such as industry head, it is difficult to expect that the deceased will attend work on his own on his own on his own by using the above 1,000-day street and the forest fire surveillance method of the deceased's office on his own, and it is difficult to expect that the deceased will have to attend work on his own on his own by using other means of transportation to the maximum distance of 12 km and that it is difficult for the deceased to expect that he will have to attend work on his own on his own on the spot without going to work.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the death of the deceased does not constitute an occupational accident on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on occupational accidents or work accidents under Article 4 (1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and the plaintiff's ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)