2013Guhap1865 Revocation of revocation of the payment of survivors' benefits and funeral expenses.

1. A;

2. B

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

March 21, 2014

April 4, 2014

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

On April 16, 2013, the defendant revoked the disposition of bereaved family's benefits and funeral site pay to the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. C, while operating a restaurant (hereinafter referred to as “Epin’s place of business in this case”) with the trade name “Epin” located in Kuju-si, L employed F and had him carry out the delivery service. On December 1, 2012, F employed G as a temporary Epin upon absence from office.

B. On December 22, 2012 without a driver’s license, G: around 00, at the trade name of the “Hpir in the vicinity of the instant business site”, G went into and out of one’s own Obaba; on the same day, at around 22:50, G went into and out of one’s own Obaba; and on the same day, at around 50: (a) caused an accident of collision to truck by neglecting an Jeonju-si in the middle line near theJ of Haju-si; and (b) died due to a sudden suspension of cardiopulmona caused by a multi-long-term corrosion.

C. On March 25, 2013, the Plaintiffs, parents of G, asserted that the instant accident in relation to the death of G against the Defendant constituted “occupational accidents” under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “Industrial Accident Insurance Act”), and filed an application for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses under the said Act.

D. On April 16, 2013, the Defendant rendered a decision on the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral site expenses (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the instant accident cannot be deemed to have occurred under the control and management of the business owner, and thus, it does not constitute occupational accidents.

【Uncontentious facts, Gap’s 1 through 4, 8, and Eul’s 1 (including the number of branches; hereinafter the same shall apply), each entry, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The Plaintiffs constitute a workplace with at least one full-time employee, and thus, the Industrial Accident Insurance Act applies. The instant accident constitutes occupational accidents, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. Related Acts and subordinate statutes: the Acts and subordinate statutes related to the instant case are listed in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Facts of recognition

The following facts may be recognized if Gap evidence 5 through 7, Eul evidence 2 through 6, and Eul evidence 2 to the witness F's testimony added to the purport of the whole oral argument. The F used to provide delivery service after being employed in the instant workplace on November 5, 2012. The working hours were 18:0 to 22:00, and the working period was from November 5, 2012 to December 30, 2012. (B) F used not to provide service about about 10 days a month including Saturdays and Sundays. From November 5, 2012 to December 4, 2012, F indicated as follows:

C) On December 1, 2012, 2012, C, a date of the instant accident, went out after completing work at an elementary school alumni conference. At around 22:00, C’s wife completed work at the instant workplace and completed work at around 22:0, C’s wife tried to make the order of the recipient by telephone to “H recipient who is in the vicinity of intending to go out of the instant workplace,” and G intending to have the recipient directly.

D) While G arrived at the above “H Party” shop and the ordered recipient, G proposed that Dob B B B B B B B B B B B, while driving the fab in the place of the order, and the G and I got on the fab. At around 22:50 the same day, the instant accident occurred at the two-lane near the J in the original city.

2 ) 판단가 ) 먼저 이 사건 사업장이 산재보험법의 적용이 제외되는지 여부에 관하여 보건대, 산재보험법 제6조 단서, 같은 법 시행령 제2조 제1항 제5호에 의하면, 상시근로자 수가 1인 미만인 사업장에 대하여는 산재보험법의 적용이 제외되는바, 산재보험법 시행령 제2조의2 제1항에 의하면, 상시근로자 수는 사업을 시작한 후 최초로 근로자를 사용한 날부터 그 사업의 가동일수 ( 祿動日數 ) 14일 동안 사용한 근로자 연인원 ( 延 人員 ) 을 14로 나누어 산정하고, 이 경우 상시근로자 수가 1명 미만이면 최초로 근로자를 사용한 날부터 하루씩 순차적으로 미루어 가동기간 14일 동안 사용한 근로자 연인원을 14로 나누어 산정한다 .

Pursuant to the above provision, the number of workers at the workplace of this case is calculated by dividing the number of workers at the workplace of this case from November 5, 2012, 201 to November 18, 2012, the number of workers from November 14, 2012, which is the 14th working days of the workplace of this case, from the date when the workplace of this case used F for the first time, is about 0.57 if the number of workers is divided into 8 and 14 working days, and the number of workers calculated by dividing the number of workers employed for 14 working days after November 5, 2012, which is the 14 working days of the workplace of this case, by 14 working days, from the date when the work of this case is deferred in order after November 5, 2012, the Industrial Accident Insurance Act is excluded from the application of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act in accordance with the above provisions.

B) Next, as to whether the instant accident constitutes an occupational accident under Article 5 subparag. 1 and Article 37 of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act, the health team, and the following circumstances revealed by the facts acknowledged as above, namely, G’s time to find out the victim voluntarily due to the operation of the Otobane, is 22:0 years after the termination of G’s business, and the motive to find the above shop is not by the business owner’s instruction or request, and the instant accident occurred while G is being driven with her personal friend with her mother while G was driven with her own friend while she was driven by her own friend, it cannot be deemed that the instant accident was caused under the business owner’s control and management, and it cannot be deemed that it constitutes an occupational accident.

C) Therefore, it is lawful that the Defendant rendered a decision on the payment of the bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses requested by the Plaintiffs.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiffs' claims are without merit, and they are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge's lecture number

Judges Lee Jin-hee

Judges Lee Jin-jin