Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Intervenor joining the Intervenor

Defendant 1 and one other (Attorney Shin Jong-sung, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

October 17, 2007

Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2005Kahap12743 Decided January 26, 2007

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the Defendants shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim against the Defendants corresponding to that part shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the total cost of the lawsuit, including the cost of assistance.

1. Purport of claim

The defendants pay to each plaintiff 70,051,286 won with 5% interest per annum from August 5, 2005 to the delivery date of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

The reasoning of this Court is as stated in Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (Provided, That the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is changed to each "Segi-gu" of "Segi-gu" of the second end and the third side four parallels among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, and it is cited by Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination

The plaintiff asserts that the accident of this case constitutes an occupational accident under the Industrial Accident Compensation Act, and the plaintiff paid the insurance money to the supplementary intervenor pursuant to Articles 40 through 42 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Act, and the supplementary intervenor has the right to claim damages against the defendants based on the tort. Thus, the plaintiff asserts that the supplementary intervenor can exercise his right to claim damages against the defendants within the scope of the insurance amount paid under Article 54(1) of the Industrial

Therefore, first, whether the instant accident constitutes an occupational accident under the Industrial Accident Compensation Act shall be viewed as a matter of course.

The occupational accident under the Industrial Accident Compensation Act refers to an accident caused by the occupational accident caused by another person's act while performing his/her duties. If an employee suffers from a disaster by another person's violence, it is recognized as an occupational accident if there is a proximate causal relation with his/her duties as a reality of human relations or duties inherent in or accompanying the ordinary risks in the workplace. However, if it is due to a private relationship between the perpetrator and the victim, or if the victim stimulates the other party beyond the limit of his/her duties, it cannot be recognized as an occupational accident (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu8587 delivered on January 24, 1995).

The details of the instant accident revealed in the evidence mentioned above are as follows.

The Defendants laid down the entrance of a parking lot to prohibit a third party from doing waterproof construction on the floor of the bridge parking lot. However, the Intervenor, who attempted to electrical construction on the parking lot, entered the parking lot without disregarding this, and putting the Intervenor into the parking lot. Accordingly, Defendant 1 1 took a desire to commit the Intervenor’s act by neglecting it. The Intervenor was able to bring about an action against the Intervenor, and the Intervenor was able to bring the said Defendant at the time of the Defendant’s desire. Defendant 2, who was reported, was at the time of the operation of the balpt. Defendant 1 had a concern that the Defendant 1 was in the past and was falpted with the Intervenor, and was falpted after the Intervenor, and was injured by the Intervenor as described in paragraph 1 C. of the above 1.

In light of the above circumstances of the accident, although the accident of this case was caused by the business of waterproof construction and electrical construction in the parking lot, it is reasonable to view that the accident of this case goes beyond a proximate causal relation with the business, it is difficult to regard it as the realization of risks inherent in human relations or duties or ordinary risks accompanying the work in the workplace, and it is reasonable to view it as going beyond a reasonable causal relation with the business.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion on the premise that the accident of this case constitutes an occupational accident under the Industrial Accident Compensation Act is without merit (the defendant asserts that the accident of this case constitutes an occupational accident, but the issue of whether it constitutes an occupational accident is a legal judgment, and thus the court is not bound by the above argument).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair since the conclusion is partially different. Thus, the part against the defendants in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked and the plaintiff's claim against the defendants in that part shall be dismissed.

Judges Choi su-ju (Presiding Judge)