(a) requirements to constitute “occupational Accidents” as provided in Article 3(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, in the event of a simple departure or retirement;

(b) The case holding that an accident resulting from a collision with a motor vehicle running on the center line at which a worker has worked while driving a motor bicycle under his/her own possession does not constitute "occupational accident" in the above paragraph (a);

A. The term "occupational accident" under Article 3 (1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to the occurrence of a cause of an accident in the course of the work performed by the worker in question under the control or management of the employer and the ordinary activities incidental thereto. Therefore, where an employee in commuting to the departure or retirement is not generally subject to the control or management of the employer, and where an accident occurred during the simple departure or retirement from work is recognized as an occupational accident by using a means of transportation such as a vehicle provided by the employer, etc. provided by the employee, or by allowing the worker to use a similar means of transportation, so that the worker's departure or retirement from work can be seen as being under the control or management of the employer.

(b) The case holding that the accident of death caused by collision with a car running the central line in the middle of the day on which the worker worked for his own motorcycle, does not constitute the "occupational Accident" in the above paragraph (a).

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

Plaintiff

The head of the Chungcheong Regional Labor Office

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu28537 delivered on July 9, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In order to constitute an occupational accident under Article 3 (1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the accident in question must be caused by not only the cause which occurred during the performance of duties, but also a proximate causal relation between duties and the accident. The performance of duties here means the cause of the accident in the course of the performance of duties and ordinary activities incidental thereto performed under the employer's control or management, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the worker in commuting to his or her work is under the employer's control or management, and where the accident occurred during his or her simple withdrawal or withdrawal from work is recognized as an occupational accident, it shall be deemed that the worker's departure or withdrawal from work is under the employer's control or management by using the means of transportation such as the vehicle provided by the employer, etc., or by allowing the user to use the similar means of transportation. In this regard, in this case where the non-party who is the husband of the plaintiff, who is the husband of the plaintiff, has been driving a motor bicycle and worked for him or her, and the above deceased's accident at the time of death, the above accident does not constitute an occupational violation of equal rights.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.