[1] The requirements and criteria for determining whether an accident during a recess constitutes an occupational accident

[2] The case holding that a disaster that occurred while an employee who worked in a workplace without a cafeteria at the place of business had been occupied by his house located in the vicinity of the place of business at the time of the occupation of his house with the employer's permission, and immediately returned to the place of business constitutes an occupational accident

[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 95Nu14633 delivered on August 23, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2886) Supreme Court Decision 99Du189 delivered on April 9, 199 (Gong199Sang, 895)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Daegu, Attorneys Sung-hee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Daegu High Court Decision 2003Nu2220 delivered on May 21, 2004

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

1. On April 11, 200, while the plaintiff's wife was employed as a production worker at the 'Dong-dong Electrical Parts Processing Business Center' operated by the non-party workers, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff's wife's wife completed an occupation-oriented surgery at his own house located approximately 250 meters away from his place of business, such as flat 12:40 on the same day, and returned from his own house to his place of business at approximately 30 meters away from his own house at 12:40 on the same day, and he was diagnosed as a 'long-term 20 on the 30 meters away from his own house at 30 meters away from his own house, and he was diagnosed as a 'long-term 20 on the face of the three North Korean Maldong-gun, the left head of which is above the ground floor, and was diagnosed as a 'long-term 20 on the 25th Ethmtrophal son', 'long 20 on the face of 20.

Furthermore, the court below held that the accident of this case occurred outside of the workplace cannot be deemed as an accident during the work hours, even if the act of the worker during the work hours is usually related to the provision of labor after the end of the work hours, and it cannot be deemed that the worker is under the control and management of the ordinary business owner because it is basically guaranteed that the worker should freely use the rest hours. Thus, the accident occurred during the work hours is recognized as an accident only in exceptional circumstances. Article 35-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules") provides a single standard for recognizing causation between the accident during the rest hours and the occupational accident. Thus, the accident of this case occurred outside the workplace cannot be deemed as an accident during the rest hours. Further, the accident of this case is equivalent to the accident during the work hours under the consent of the business owner, and even if the accident of this case occurred while returning to the workplace without leaving the workplace under the consent of the business owner, it cannot be viewed as an accident during the work hours, and it does not constitute an accident after the business owner's work.

2. As the accident during the hours of recess is permitted to be free to act for an employee during the hours of recess, it cannot be deemed that an ordinary employee is under the control and management of the employer, but since the act of an employee during the hours of recess is related to the provision of labor after the end of the hours of recess, the act can be recognized as an occupational accident if it can be seen that the process of the act is under the control and management of the employer (see Supreme Court Decision 9Du189 delivered on April 9, 199). Article 35-2 of the Rules requires that the act be an accident that occurred within the place of business as an element of an occupational accident, but since the above provision is merely a provision of business regulations inside the administrative agency in light of its nature and content, the act of an employee during the hours of recess is related to the provision of labor after the end of the hours of recess. Thus, it can be deemed that the act is under the control and management of the employer, regardless of whether it is inside or outside the place of business to be recognized as an occupational accident.

However, according to the records and the facts duly confirmed by the court below, the "Dong-dong," working for the deceased, has about 17 employees, about 5 female employees, and about 12 female employees, and the company did not have a cafeteria within the place of business, issued an order at an outside restaurant to provide food produced within the place of business, or paid 2,50 won per day after calculating the amount of food supplied within the place of business and paying the amount of wages to the employees, and then the employees have to resolve the history of occupation. The male employees are not only living in other areas but also provide the company with an outside restaurant and provide it through the outside restaurant, and some female employees who do not work within the 0-day place of business who did not work within the 0-day place of business, and have the company go to know about the fact that the company's own house and the company's house had 20-day employees return out of the place of business (the company's house and the company's house's house's house's house's house's house's house's own house's house's own house's house's own house's house's house's house's house's 2.

If so, the deceased's act of performing an occupation-oriented death at his own home during one-hour recess is an employee's act of performing his/her own duties, preparing or arranging his/her duties, and a physiological or reasonable act that is deemed incidental to it by social norms and is not beyond the control of the business owner. Thus, the accident in this case occurred during that process shall be deemed as an occupational accident.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the accident of this case constitutes an accident at work, and it is not an occupational accident. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to occupational accident under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench

Justices Lee Han-gu (Presiding Justice)