logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.08.26 2014누68425
최초요양급여신청불승인처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

The reasons for the judgment of this court which partially accepted the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for adding the following judgments to the plaintiff's assertion:

Therefore, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The instant accident that occurred during his/her commuting to and from work constitutes “accident that happens during his/her commuting to and from work under the control and management of the business owner, such as using a means of transport provided by the business owner or a similar means of transport, etc.” under Article 37(1)1(c) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance

Judgment

In general, it cannot be said that the method and route of commuting are reserved to a worker and is under the control and management of the employer. Unless the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act has a special provision that recognizes an accident that occurred during the worker’s commuting from the ordinary method and route as an occupational accident, a disaster that occurred during commuting can not be deemed as an occupational accident solely on the ground that the worker’s choice of the method and route of commuting is ordinary.

Therefore, in order for a disaster to be caused during his/her work to be caused by an occupational accident, if an employee uses the means of transportation provided by the employer, or the employer allows the employee to use a similar means of transportation, the method of commuting to and from work and the choice of the route seems to have been entrusted to the employee, but the employee was on duty while commuting to and from work.

The worker's commuting is not actually reserved because of the lack of choice on the method of commuting due to an urgent work related to the work before or after the ordinary time of commuting or due to the characteristics of the work or other characteristics of the work and the characteristics of the work, etc., and it is judged that there is a close relationship with the work to the extent that it is very close by social norms.

arrow