logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.07.18 2018누34833
요양승인처분취소청구의 소
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal, including the part arising from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification of the part concerning Chapters 8, 12, and 11, and 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in the following 2. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 4

2. The term “occupational accident” under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 1) related legal principles refers to an accident resulting from an employee’s performance of duties or ordinary activities incidental thereto under the employer’s control and management based on an employment contract with the employer.

Therefore, it is related to the business of the employer.

Any accident that occurs during trade union activities after the entry into the stage of dispute in conflict with an illegal trade union activities or an employer, which cannot be seen as being under the control and management of an employer, shall not be deemed an occupational accident.

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Nu13866 delivered on June 10, 197, etc.). Meanwhile, the main text of Article 37(2) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act provides that “self-injury by a worker, or any injury or disease caused by such act shall not be deemed an occupational accident.” In light of the fact that the industrial accident compensation insurance system aims not only to compensate for the employer’s liability for negligence but also to guarantee the life of the affected worker and his/her family members, the requirements for restrictions on insurance benefits under the above Act should be strictly interpreted. Thus, the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act should be construed as “where a disease occurs due to a worker’s criminal act” under the main text of Article 37(2) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to “where a disease occurs entirely due to a worker’s criminal act.”

2. The case.

arrow