(a) Requirements for accidents in transit to constitute “occupational accidents” under Article 3(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act;

(b) The case holding that it does not constitute an occupational accident referred to in the above "A" merely on the ground that it is inevitable to work again after making use of urban buses on the day on which he goes to work again due to an occupational necessity;

A. Even though workers’ commuting activities are closely related to the business of providing labor, it cannot be said that the choice of commuting methods and routes is under the control and management of an ordinary business owner, since it is ordinarily reserved for workers to select them, it cannot be said that the worker is under the control and management of an ordinary business owner. Thus, the worker’s commuting process should not be deemed that the worker’s commuting process is not under the control and management of the business owner, such as using the means of transportation provided by the business owner, or allowing the business owner to use the means of transportation corresponding thereto.

(b) The case holding that it does not constitute an occupational accident as referred to in the above "A solely on the ground that it is inevitable to work again after making use of urban buses on the day on which he goes to work again for the reason of his occupational necessity.

Article 3(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

Supreme Court Decision 92Nu13073 delivered on January 19, 1993 (Gong1993, 745) 92Nu11497 delivered on January 26, 1993

Plaintiff

The head of Busan Northern Labor Office

Busan High Court Decision 92Gu1957 delivered on October 14, 1992

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On August 26, 1991, the court below duly confirmed that the non-party, who is the husband of the plaintiff, was killed in the vehicle on the crosswalk while getting off the urban bus at the place of work near Jin metal, which is located in the gold-type manufacturing business chain located in Busan Northern-gu, Busan, for the purpose of serving at the work site near Jin metal, and determined that the non-party's death is an occupational accident as follows.

In other words, it is difficult for the deceased to use the above 0-day metal at the above 0-day stop for the above 0-day stop and the above 0-day stop for the above 0-day stop for the above 4-day stop. On the other hand, it is necessary for the deceased to receive more protection unlike simple illness or death. Thus, the above 0-day stop for the above 0-day stop for the above 0-day stop for the above 15-day stop for the above 0-day stop for the above 17-day stop for the above 10-day stop for the deceased's 10-day stop for the above 17-day stop for the above 1-day stop for the deceased's 1-day stop for the above 0-day stop for the above 1-day stop for the deceased's 1-day stop for the above 1-day stop for the first time.

2. The term "occupational accidents" under Article 3 (1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to occupational accidents caused by an employee's performance of work or ordinary process of work incidental thereto under the control and management of the employer under an employment contract with the employer. Thus, even if the worker's commuting activity is closely related to the business of providing labor, it shall not be deemed that the worker's commuting and the choice of the route is reserved to the worker, and therefore, it shall not be deemed that the worker's commuting process is under the control and management of the employer. Thus, it shall not be deemed that the worker's commuting process is not a case where the worker's commuting process of work, such as using the means of transportation provided by the employer or allowing the employer to use the means of transportation corresponding thereto, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu13073, Jan. 19, 193; 92Nu1497, Jan. 26, 1993).

Even if it is inevitable for the above deceased to work again after using the urban bus as above at his office on the day when the deceased worked at work, as acknowledged by the court below, it is difficult to deem that there was any special circumstance that the above deceased's commuting to work was under the control and management of the business owner, and therefore, it is difficult to deem that there was any special circumstance that the accidents in the commuting to the present case occurred under the control and management of the business owner, and therefore, it cannot be recognized as occupational accidents.

On the other hand, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to occupational accidents under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and the appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)