[1] The meaning of "occupational accident" under Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and the requirements for recognizing an occupational accident that occurred during the worker's departure or withdrawal from office

[2] The case holding that the injury or disease caused by an accident that occurred while working in the subway for the preparation of the board of directors at the office on holidays does not constitute occupational accident on the grounds that the subway lines used to work in the subway for the purpose of preparing the board of directors cannot be deemed as a means under the control and management of the business owner

[1] Article 4 subparagraph 1 (see current Article 5 subparagraph 1) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 8373 of Apr. 11, 2007) / [2] Article 4 subparagraph 1 (see current Article 5 subparagraph 1) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 8373 of Apr. 11, 2007)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 9Du9025 delivered on December 24, 1999 (Gong2000Sang, 325) Supreme Court Decision 2005Du4458 Delivered on September 29, 2005 (Gong2005Ha, 1698) Supreme Court en banc Decision 2005Du12572 Delivered on September 28, 2007 (Gong2007Ha, 1685)

Plaintiff

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 2006Nu660 delivered on December 28, 2006

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The term “occupational accident” under Article 4 subparag. 1 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 8373 of Apr. 11, 2007; hereinafter “Industrial Accident Insurance Act”) refers to an accident caused by an occupational accident under the control and management of an employee and his/her employer in the course of performing his/her duties or conducting ordinary activities incidental thereto, based on an employment contract between the employee and the employer. However, even though there is a close and poor relationship with the business of providing labor, it cannot be said that an employee is under the control and management of an ordinary employer because the choice of an employee is reserved in terms of the method and route of departure and retirement. Unless there are special provisions that recognize an accident that occurred during his/her departure and retirement by normal method and route, it cannot be deemed that the employee is under the control and management of an occupational accident that occurred in the course of 200 or 50. 97 Supreme Court en banc Decision 209Du98509 Decided May 29, 2009.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below acknowledged the facts of the judgment citing the reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance, and held that the injury and disease of this case cannot be deemed an occupational accident on the ground that the plaintiff, the secretary general of the non-party foundation, even though the plaintiff, who was the head of the office of the non-party foundation, had left the public transportation to the plaintiff for the preparation of the board of directors on holidays, and the plaintiff was responsible for the office's office's work hours and the subway lines used for the plaintiff's work cannot be deemed a means of transportation controlled and managed by the business owner. There is no violation of the rules of evidence and there is no error of law

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Ill-sook (Presiding Justice)