1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for adding the supplementary judgment under Paragraph 2 below. Thus, this case is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Supplementary judgment

A. The defendant asserts that the "third round prior to the occurrence of the accident in this case" goes beyond the scope of the control management lower due to the business owner's unpredictability, and that the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have been forced to attend the third round and drinking, and that the accident in this case cannot be deemed as an occupational accident.

(b) In the case of an accident under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act where a proximate causal relationship between the injury, disease, or disability occurs or is recognized even when an employee has died, it constitutes occupational accident under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, provided that it is mainly attributable to the employer’s drinking exceeding his/her liquor in the form of a series of forms controlled

However, whether there is a proximate causal relationship between the business and the accident should be determined with careful consideration of various circumstances, such as whether an employer has recommended or forced a worker to drink alcohol, or whether drinking was conducted voluntarily by his/her own judgment and intent, the amount of drinking alcohol to other workers, other than the worker affected by the disaster, is certain degree, whether the disaster is within the scope of risks ordinarily entailed in the course of a briefing session related to his/her duties, and whether the disaster is not a disaster that occurred through any other abnormal route unrelated to the mental and physical disorder caused by a ceremony or overwork, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Du25276 Decided November 12, 2015). C.

In light of the above legal principles, as to whether the instant accident constitutes an occupational accident, the health team and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence acknowledged earlier, i.e., B of the non-party company.