[1] In a case where an employee under the control or management of an employer conducted drinking in excess of his/her alcohol as the main cause thereof and suffers from an injury, disease, physical disability, death, etc., whether it can be deemed as an occupational accident (affirmative with qualification), and the method of determining the proximate causal relation between the duties, food, and accident in this case

[2] In a case where Gap applied for medical care benefits after undergoing diagnosis, such as cerebral scoppy surgery, etc., due to an accident falling from the stairs of the scopic building, which is the second place, during the participation in the company hall, but the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation rendered a disposition not to grant medical care on the ground that "it is difficult to view it as an accident in the event held by the business owner or in accordance with the direction of the business owner", the case holding that the above accident constitutes an occupational accident on the ground that it can be deemed that the scopic state caused by drinking on

[1] In a case where an employee was under the control or management of an employer’s drinking in excess of his/her liquor and caused an accident such as injury, disease, physical disability, death, etc., such accident may be deemed an occupational accident insofar as proximate causal relation is acknowledged. The proximate causal relation between duties, food, and disaster shall be determined by taking into account various circumstances, such as whether the employer committed an excessive act despite the employer’s restraint or restraint of the excessive act, whether the employee himself/herself himself/herself and voluntarily committed excessive act, whether the amount of drinking alcohol is certain, whether the accident may be deemed to have occurred within the scope of risks ordinarily connected to the ordinary process of a meeting related to his/her duties, and whether the accident occurred through other abnormal routes unrelated to the mental and physical disorder resulting from excessive drinking, etc.

[2] The case holding that in a case where Gap applied for medical care benefits due to the diagnosis of "cerebral scoppy, scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic, brain scopic scopic scopic, and brain scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic s"

[1] Article 5 subparag. 1 and Article 37(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act / [2] Article 5 subparag. 1 and Article 37(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2008Du9812 Decided October 9, 2008 (Gong2015Ha, 1897) Supreme Court Decision 2013Du25276 Decided November 12, 2015 (Gong2015Ha, 1897)

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Jin-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 2016Nu39223 decided September 27, 2016

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In a case where a worker suffers from a disaster while participating in an event or a meeting outside of a company, in view of the circumstances such as the organizer, purpose, contents, number of participants and forced participation in the event or meeting, method of operation, burden of expenses, etc., if, under social norms, the overall process of the event or meeting is in a state of being controlled or managed by the employer, and the worker is in a state of not getting out of the net course of such event or meeting, it may be recognized as an occupational accident under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du6717, Nov. 15, 2007, etc.).

In a case where an employee was under the control or management of the employer’s drinking in excess of his/her liquor and caused an injury, disease, physical disability, death, etc., such accident may be deemed an occupational accident insofar as proximate causal relation is recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Du9812, Oct. 9, 2008; 2013Du25276, Nov. 12, 2015). The proximate causal relation between the occupational, health, and disaster shall be determined by taking into account the following circumstances: (a) whether the employee himself/herself himself/herself and voluntarily conducted an excessive act despite the employer’s restraint or restraint on the excessive act; (b) whether the amount of drinking alcohol is certain; (c) whether the accident occurred within the scope of risks ordinarily incidental to the ordinary process; and (d) whether the accident occurred through an abnormal route unrelated to a mental or physical disorder resulting from excessive drinking.

2. The lower court determined that there was no proximate causal relation between the business and the instant accident, on the following grounds, that the instant accident, which the Plaintiff did with a voluntary intention even without any solicitation or coercion at the time of the first round of drinking, and fell from the stairs of a danran building located on the second floor, was the main cause of excessive drinking, and it is difficult to view it as a risks ordinarily incidental to the first round of drinking, and thus, it was difficult to view it as a matter of course related to the business.

A. The Plaintiff, an employee of the non-party 1 corporation (hereinafter “non-party 1 corporation”) drank two half of the illness of the Plaintiff with his own will, even though the non-party 2, who was the leader of the meeting at the time of the first round of meeting, did not drink alcohol.

B. The second round is the proposal of the head of the non-party 2, among the first round of the meeting, and the attendance was not enforced.

(c) All persons attending the meeting are likely to have taken meals and drinking together in the ordinary school because they reside together in the dormitory of the company located in Gwangju Metropolitan City.

D. Although Nonparty 1 provided the Plaintiff and other employees with meal expenses, even if Nonparty 2 received a corporate card from Nonparty 3, the business owner of Nonparty 1, and paid the first and second meal expenses, Nonparty 1 cannot be deemed as a formal meeting that took place in the danran.

3. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept.

A. The reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveal the following.

(1) At the site of Nonparty 1’s ○○ Construction site, Nonparty 2, the head of Nonparty 3, the head of Nonparty 4, and the Plaintiff 3 were working for the business owner’s friendly relationship with Nonparty 3.

(2) The first and second round forms were sent out by three employees at the ○○ Construction Site, and Nonparty 1 was difficult to singing down the first and second round forms as part of the first round forms each year.

(3) The Plaintiff and Nonparty 4, except Nonparty 2, who is unable to drink alcohol in a physical form, drinked a similar quantity of alcohol with each other. The second meal was conducted at a company’s entertainment bar near the company’s lodging room, and the Plaintiff did not undergo an additional drinking.

(4) All of the first and second installment costs were calculated by Nonparty 1’s corporate card.

(5) In the situation where three employees of the ○○ Construction Site live together at the company’s lodging place, the Plaintiff seems to have been unable to attend the second ceremony at his own will.

B. Examining these circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it can be deemed that the second round ceremony was in the status of being controlled or managed by the employer. Furthermore, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff was in a state of being controlled or managed by Nonparty 2, etc., notwithstanding the detention or restraint of Nonparty 2, etc. Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s act of receiving phone at a meeting place or of taking female in a toilet, etc., can be said to have been in the course of a meeting, and it cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff was out of the net route. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the instant accident constituted occupational accidents, since the Plaintiff was in a state of drinking caused by drinking drinking of a series of jobs related to his duties, which directly caused the Plaintiff’s drinking caused the instant accident due to his/her drinking in a dial custom.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff was subject to the instant accident beyond the net course of the first round of ceremony on the premise that the second round of ceremony constitutes private and private meetings. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on occupational accidents and by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

4. The Plaintiff’s appeal is with merit, and the case is remanded to the court below 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 Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)