In a case where a worker goes beyond his/her driver's care due to driving his/her on-site for night work and serving as a company, the case holding that it constitutes an occupational accident on the ground that there is no room for choice of the worker on the ground that there is no room for choice on the part of the worker on the ground that it is actually impossible to use the means of public transportation or commuting buses for his/her on-site and retirement or due to a situation where he/she should bear

Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 8373 of Apr. 11, 2007) (see current Article 5 subparagraph 1 of the current Act)

Plaintiff

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 2005Nu29060 Delivered on December 28, 2006

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 4 subparag. 1 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 8373 of Apr. 11, 2007) refers to an accident caused by the business owner's control and management under an employment contract between the workers and the business owner, or an ordinary activity incidental thereto. Generally, insofar as the method of departure and retirement of workers and their route are reserved for the choice of workers, it cannot be deemed that the accident occurred during the period of withdrawal and retirement of workers on the ground that the choice of workers is ordinarily normal. However, if it can be deemed that the procedure of withdrawal and retirement of workers is under the control and management of the business owner's 20.1,00,000,000 or 20,000,000,0000 or 20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00).

The lower court determined that the instant accident, which was caused by the Plaintiff, who was an employee of the sub-committee, for night work at around 19:50 on November 18, 2003, was an accident that occurred outside the workplace, and was caused by the Plaintiff’s driver’s care while working in the non-party company while driving the off-to-land owned by the Plaintiff and working in the non-party company, did not constitute an occupational accident on the ground that it cannot be deemed an accident that occurred under the employer’s control and management.

However, according to the facts duly established by the court below and the record, the non-party company located in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, providing a transit bus for workers in Busan-do. This transit bus does not pass through the plaintiff's residential premises located in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, △△△△△, and the plaintiff intends to work for the non-party company without using the offbab, going through the two front of the two Dong office and then go through the ○○ City bus from the front of the two Dong office, and then go through the ○○ City bus from the front of the non-party company up to the △△△△△△ City to the front of the two Dong office. The non-party company is going to go through the ○ City bus from the front of the non-party company up to the 1 to 2km of the two Dong office from the plaintiff's residence, the 000 city bus from 120 minutes a day to 120 minutes a day to 21 minutes a day to 21 minutes a day to 25 minutes a day from the front of the company.

In full view of these circumstances, it is unreasonable for the Plaintiff to expect the Plaintiff to choose a method of departure or retirement for the Plaintiff to use the means of public transportation or transit bus for commuting to and from the port, because the Plaintiff is virtually unable to use such means of transportation or transit to and from the port, or is obliged to bear a significant physical labor and daily burden, and thus, it is unreasonable to expect the Plaintiff to choose a method of departure or retirement other than an individual means of transportation, such as his own automobile and automobiles. Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have reserved the Plaintiff, and it is judged that there is no room to choose a method of departure or retirement from the port, and that there is a close and close relationship between the disaster and the business that occurred during such departure or retirement, and such disaster is deemed to have occurred due to an occupational reason under the control and management of the business owner.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the instant accident did not constitute an occupational accident on the grounds that it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff was unable to go out or drop out to the non-party company in line with the operating hours of the urban bus or the bus via the urban bus or the bus, or to walk part of the route. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on occupational accidents under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

Therefore, without determining the remainder of the grounds of appeal on infringement of equal rights, 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 Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)