(a) Requirements for recognizing a disaster caused by an occupational accident, which is incurred in participating in an event or a meeting other than companies that are not prescribed as ordinary business in an employment contract;

(b) Whether an occupational accident occurs where workers die or are injured due to a traffic accident in which they board a vehicle owned by the employer together for the purpose of drinking alcoholic beverages at another place after the end of the regular session held by the employer;

(a) In the event of a disaster while participating in an event or a meeting, other than a company that is not prescribed as a matter of duty to be ordinarily engaged in by an employment contract, if it is intended to recognize it as an occupational accident, the overall process of the event or meeting must first be in the state of being controlled or managed by the employer in light of the circumstances such as the organizer, purpose, contents, number of participants, forcedness, methods of operation, burden of expenses, etc. of the event or meeting, and the worker must not deviate from such an event or meeting’s usual route.

B. The case holding that since the employer's regular meeting is completed, and the worker first returned home to the attending worker, and the worker dies or is about the worker due to the traffic accident where the worker gets on and off a vehicle owned by the employer for drinking drinking in another place, the worker's voluntary meeting of the victimized worker constitutes his private act, and it does not constitute an ongoing exercise of the employer's control and management, and it cannot be deemed that the damaged worker has continued to do so, since the worker left the usual course of the initial exercise, the work performance cannot be recognized, and therefore, it cannot be viewed as an occupational accident that can receive accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act.

Articles 78 and 82 of the Labor Standards Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 92Nu1107 delivered on October 9, 1992 (Gong1992, 3152) B. Supreme Court Decision 86Meu556 delivered on December 23, 1986 (Gong1987, 228)

Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Edives

Gwangju High Court Decision 94Na3277 delivered on November 11, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant 2:00 to 24:00 of the day immediately before the occurrence of the traffic accident in general restaurants outside of the workplace of this case died or died of the non-party, etc. or died of the non-party, etc. in the wind which caused the accident that the non-party 2 passed on the monthly salary day from 22:0 to 24:00 of the day before the occurrence of the traffic accident, and returned to the non-party 2, etc. first after completing a regular ceremony held by the defendant on other monthly salary dates, and the non-party 1 et al. were returned to the non-party 2. However, according to the above recognition of the accident, the non-party 1 et al. did not suffer from the accident that the non-party 2, etc. was in the course of performing his duties, and they drink the remaining drinking in the same restaurant at around 00:30 of the following day.

2. Where a worker is suffering from an accident while participating in an event or a meeting other than a company which is not prescribed as one which is ordinarily obligated to engage in an employment contract, the overall process of the event or meeting must be under the control or management of the employer in light of the circumstances such as the organizer, purpose, contents, number of participants and forcedness, method of operation, burden of expenses, etc. of the event or meeting (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu1107, Oct. 9, 1992; 92Nu1107, Oct. 9, 199), and where the worker does not deviate from the usual course of the event or meeting. Accordingly, if the facts are legally determined by the court below, even after the defendant completed a regular meeting and directed the non-party, and returned home first after returning home, the non-party et al.'s continuation of the meeting without his own discretion constitutes an act of private nature, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the non-party et al.'s exercise of control over the above vehicle constitutes an accident.

Ultimately, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is correct, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to occupational accidents, such as the theory of lawsuit.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)