[1] Requirements for recognizing accidents that occur in the course of commuting as occupational accidents

[2] The case holding that it does not constitute an occupational accident for an accident caused by a traffic accident involving a crosswalk in order to board a bus provided by the company

[1] In order to recognize an accident caused by an occupational accident, the means of transportation provided by the employer shall be deemed to be under the control and management of the employer, such as the use by the worker, etc.

[2] The case affirming the judgment below which held that if a worker was involved in a traffic accident by cutting a crosswalk to board a bus via a bus, it cannot be deemed that the worker had been under the control and management of the business owner, and it does not constitute an occupational accident merely because the above accident location is close to five meters from the bus via a bus

[1] Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act / [2] Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Nu16805 delivered on May 11, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 1730), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu5970 delivered on September 14, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2813), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu24186 delivered on April 12, 1994 (Gong194Sang, 1499)

Plaintiff

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 95Gu17375 delivered on December 14, 1995

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In order for a worker to be recognized as an occupational accident, the worker's commuting process, such as using the means of transportation provided by the business owner, etc., should be deemed to be under the control and management of the business owner (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Nu13073, Jan. 19, 1993; 92Nu16805, May 11, 1993; 93Nu24186, Apr. 12, 1994). In the same purport, the court below concluded that the accident in this case was just because the non-party, who is the husband of the plaintiff, was a traffic accident, and the traffic accident occurred from the above six-lane road to the above six-lane road, and it did not constitute an occupational violation of the law, such as the disaster management of the deceased, on the ground that it did not constitute an occupational violation of the law by the above business owner.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)