[1] The meaning of "third party" under Article 54 (1) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

[2] Persons eligible for insurance benefits under the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (=workers under the Labor Standards Act) and the criteria for determining whether they are applicable

[3] Where a dump truck driver's dump truck driver at the construction site under a lease agreement and an industrial accident occurred to his/her employees, the case holding that the driver of the dump truck constitutes "third party" under Article 54 (1) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and the above accident constitutes "disaster by a third party"

[4] The case holding that a lessor who entered into a dump truck lease contract with a business owner is not included in the "subcontractor" under Article 9 (1) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

[1] Article 54 (1) (see current Article 87 (1)) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 8373 of Apr. 11, 2007) / [2] Article 4 (see current Article 5) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 8373 of Apr. 11, 2007), Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Labor Standards Act / [3] Article 4 (see current Article 5), Article 54 (1) (see current Article 87 (1)) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 8373 of Apr. 11, 2007), Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Labor Standards Act / [4] Article 9 (1) (see current Article 9 (1) (see current Article 9 (1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 7047 of Dec. 31, 2003)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 85Da2285 delivered on March 8, 198 (Gong1988, 650) Supreme Court Decision 2003Da33691 Delivered on December 24, 2004 (Gong2005Sang, 189) Supreme Court Decision 2006Da32910 Delivered on April 10, 2008 (Gong2008Sang, 660) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 98Da6084 Delivered on May 8, 199 (Gong198Sang, 159) (Gong198Du201 Delivered on February 24, 199) (Gong199, 576). Supreme Court Decision 2003Da630745 Delivered on January 25, 2007

Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Corporation (Attorney Gyeong-han, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant 1 and two others (Law Firm Vindication, Attorneys Gyeong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daejeon High Court Decision 2005Na9133 Decided April 12, 2006

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its holding, and rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion on the premise that Defendant 1’s act of using and earning from dump trucks for a certain period of time, and that it cannot be viewed as a lessor who receives compensation for using and earning profit from dump trucks from dump trucks. At the same time, the above dump trucks should be leased to dump trucks, which are actually employed by dump trucks for wage purposes and constitutes an industrial accident compensation insurance company (hereinafter “Seoul Mine Construction”), which directly and indirectly purchased industrial accident compensation insurance for which it cannot be viewed as an “third party” under the premise that the industrial accident compensation insurance is not carried out by the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “this case’s industrial accident compensation insurance company”) and it cannot be viewed as an “accident” under the premise that the industrial accident is carried out by the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Corporation’s employees, regardless of the inherent purpose of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act’s industrial accident compensation insurance contract. Furthermore, the court below determined that it should be viewed as an occupational accident that is an occupational accident that would naturally affect the industrial accident.

2. However, Article 54(1) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 8373, Apr. 11, 2007; hereinafter the same shall apply) (Article 87(1) of the current Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act) provides that "Where the Corporation has paid insurance benefits due to a disaster caused by a third party's act, it shall subrogate the person who has received benefits to the third party within the limit of the amount of benefits: Provided, That this shall not apply in cases where two or more employers are performing an act by dividing one business at the same place and the other employers are different from the employer, and the third party is the insurer (the business owner) and the person other than the pertinent beneficiary, who is not the insured, and is liable for damages to the affected worker at the time of rendering the insurance benefits under the provisions of the Civil Act or the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act or the State Compensation Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da38684, Mar. 8, 1988; 200Da3696364, etc.

First, according to the facts and records duly established by the court below as to whether Defendant 1 constitutes “third party” under Article 54(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Act, Defendant 1 entered the instant dump truck under the name of Defendant 2, who used and managed the instant dump truck entirely after having registered its business under the name of Defendant 2, and Nonparty 1, who is the head of the due dump truck, decided to rent the instant dump truck with Defendant 1 on November 2003. From that point of view, the monthly rent is paid KRW 4,30,000 per hour, and the lessor agreed to treat the instant dump truck under the lease agreement with the dump truck with the dump truck with the dump truck with the dump truck with the dump truck with the dump truck with the dump truck’s status of 1,000 won per hour, and the dump truck with the dump transport order of this case.

In addition, even though the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service deems that an occupational accident occurred due to the reality of one risk such as machinery, apparatus, etc. in the workplace is in accord with the social insurance or liability insurance nature of the industrial accident compensation insurance, Defendant 1 does not constitute a person who provides labor in a subordinate relationship with the same worker as the accident worker in this case for the purpose of wages, and is not directly or indirectly in an industrial accident compensation insurance relationship with the accident worker, and the accident in this case occurred due to the operation of dump trucks in this case under the management and control of Defendant 1, which is operated under the management and control of dump trucks in this case, and cannot be deemed as realizing one risks inherent in the construction site in which the operation of dump trucks in this case is operated under the management and control of dump or Southern construction. The meaning of the plaintiff's ultimate liability for compensation of the industrial accident is that the final person responsible for the industrial accident should be determined within the scope of the industrial accident compensation insurance, and it does not constitute an industrial accident under Article 5 (1)3) of this case.

Furthermore, Article 9(1) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 7049 of Dec. 31, 2003) (Article 9(1) of the current Act on the Collection of Insurance Premiums, etc. for dump trucks) provides that "if a business is conducted through several contracts of work, the original contractor shall be deemed the owner of the business to whom this Act applies: Provided, That where the original contractor allows a subcontractor to take over insurance premiums through a written contract, the subcontractor shall be deemed the owner of the business to whom this Act applies if the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service approves the payment upon his/her request." As seen earlier, in light of the detailed relationship of use of the dump truck of this case and the payment method thereof, the legal relationship on the use of the dump truck of this case shall be deemed to be borne by the lessor. However, even if the operation contract is performed by Defendant 1 in terms of labor relationship, it shall not be deemed to be included in the subcontract or construction relationship between the subcontractor and the subcontractor of this case."

Nevertheless, as stated in its holding, the court below held that Defendant 1 is a worker employed in Madro, and thus the above defendant does not fall under “third party” under Article 54(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Act, or that the accident in this case cannot be deemed as “disaster caused by a third party’s act.” The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on workers and by misapprehending the legal principles on “disaster caused by a third party’s act” under Article 54(1) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Act and by misapprehending the legal principles on “disaster caused by a third party’s act” under Article 54(1) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Act and “contractor or subcontractor” under Article 9(1) of

3. Therefore, 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 Cha Han-sung (Presiding Justice)