2016Gudan31367 and revocation of non-approval of temporary layoff benefits

Han ○

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

March 6, 2017

March 30, 2017

1. On September 11, 2015, the Defendant’s first medical care and non-approval of temporary layoff benefits against the Plaintiff should be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The order is as set forth in the text.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company in charge of the business of the agricultural company ○○○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “non-party company”). On January 20, 2015, the Plaintiff called from the non-party company’s business partner ○○ farm owner to bring about the drugs, which are ordered. On January 20, 2015, the Plaintiff operated the vehicle and returned to the ○○ farm by receiving drugs from the non-party company ○○○○○○○ drugs, and delivered the vehicles to the ○○○ farm. The traffic accident (hereinafter referred to as “the instant accident”) that fell from the road with the vehicle, which fell into the rode below the road. As a result, the Plaintiff suffered from the injury of the fluenite (openness), the brush, the spaced spath, the complete spath, and the pathian.

B. On August 12, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for medical care benefits and temporary layoff benefits by asserting that such accident occurred on the way that he/she completed the duties requested by the customer of the non-party company and returned to him/her. However, on September 11, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision on the non-approval of medical care benefits and temporary layoff benefits (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition") on the ground that the Plaintiff’s delivery of medicines required for the stock farm is an occupational accident that occurred in the past, but the delivery of medicines required for the stock farm is not deemed the Plaintiff’s main business, and that the Plaintiff’s demand for the stock farm was complied with the Plaintiff’s arbitrary judgment, and thus, this accident cannot be recognized as an occupational accident.

C. The Plaintiff filed a request for examination against the Plaintiff, but the Defendant rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s request for examination on April 7, 2016. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination, but the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Committee rendered a ruling to dismiss the Plaintiff’s request for reexamination on September 19, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, 16, Eul evidence 9, and the purport of the body before oral argument

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff, a business employee of the non-party company, who sells the general mixture feed to the farm, delivered drugs to another place of business upon the request of the customer stock farm, was an inevitable ordinary business of the business employee. Since the Plaintiff suffered an injury due to a traffic accident while performing such trade affairs, the instant accident constitutes an occupational accident under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, but the instant accident constitutes an occupational accident under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the Defendant’s disposition in this case should be revoked accordingly.

3. Whether the disposition is legitimate;

A. Relevant statutes

(1) Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

(A) Article 5 (Definition) The terms used in this Act are defined as follows:

1. The term "occupational accident" means an employee's injury, disease, disability or death due to an occupational reason.

(B) Article 37 (Standards for Recognition of Occupational Accidents)

(1) If a worker suffers an injury, disease, or disability or dies due to any of the following causes, the injury, disease, or disability shall be deemed an occupational accident: Provided, That this shall not apply where there is no proximate causal relation between the duty and the accident:

1. An occupational accident:

(a) An accident that happens while a worker performs a duty under an employment contract or any other act incidental thereto;

(b) A defect or management office of a facility, etc. provided by a business owner while using such facility, etc.;

An accident caused by negligence;

(c) Accidents caused to and from work under the control and management of the business owner, such as the use of the means of transportation provided by the business owner or any similar means of transportation;

(d) An accident under the supervision of the business owner or during preparation for an event or event in compliance with the direction of the business owner;

(e) An accident that happens due to an act deemed under the control and management of the business owner during recess hours;

(f) Other accidents in connection with the business affairs.

(3) Specific criteria for recognition of occupational accidents shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

(2) Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (An accident during the performance of duties)

1 (1) An accident that occurs while a worker engages in any of the following acts shall be deemed an accident on duty under Article 37 (1) 1 (a) of the Act:

1. Performing duties under an employment contract;

2. An act of biological necessity, such as a roadside, etc. performed in the course of performing his/her duties;

3. Preparing for or finishing up work and other necessary acts incidental to his/her duties;

4. Acts expected by social norms, such as emergency evacuation and rescue arising from an unexpected accident that happens inside a place of business, such as a natural disaster or fire.

(2) Any accident on duty under Article 37 (1) 1 (a) of the Act that happens while a worker is performing his/her duties outside the workplace by following instructions from the employer: Provided, That an accident that happens while the worker is carrying out an act in violation of a specific direction from the employer, an act in violation of a worker's private act or is off his/her normal business trip shall not be deemed an accident on duty.

(3) Any accident that happens in connection with the business from the time an employee who has no place of business fixed due to the nature of his/her business arrives at the first lawsuit for the performance of his/her business to the time his/her business is completed last to the time he/she retires after completing the business.

(b) Markets:

In full view of the purport, contents, etc. of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the term "business" refers to the business performed by an employee based on an employment contract between an employee and an employer under the control and management of the employer, and the activities incidental to the duties of the employee in charge, and the activities necessary for the commencement or continuation of the duties in charge. Such business activities refer to the activities conducted under the employer's order or the activities recognized as part of the business customarily or objectively under the employer's order and the activities deemed necessary for the company's management, promotion of business and labor management under the social social norms, etc., including the activities conducted under the employer's order, and the activities conducted under the implied order, which are deemed necessary for the company's management, and the ordinary activities incidental thereto (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2000Du475, Sept. 34, 199; 2005Du8797, Feb. 4, 2007).

The key issue of this case is whether the Plaintiff’s delivery of drugs for another place of business upon the request of Nonparty Company’s customer is included in the Plaintiff’s ordinary business.

(1) Facts of recognition

(A) The organization of the non-party company and the plaintiff's work

The non-party company is a company that produces and sells general mixtures feed (TMR) and milk mainly among them. The number of employees is about 12 persons, including 12 representative directors, 2 non-party employees, 2 vehicle drivers, 5 factory manufacturers, and 3 business employees including the Plaintiff.

The position of business is the head of the business office, the head of the business division, and the business director, and the plaintiff is the most superior business director. The plaintiff's labor contract includes working hours from 08:22:00 to 22:5 hours for overtime hours; and one hour for overtime hours. However, both the plaintiff and the representative director, and the business employee are stating that they will work outside the company for a considerable part of the work without being subject to commuting management, and that they will work outside the company. The senior business employee will report to the head of the office accounting division or the president, and immediately be the head of the farm. The plaintiff used the business for the plaintiff's business (K7) with a vehicle (K7) provided by the company. The 3 and 4 business employees manage the farm.

(B) The particulars of the accident and the circumstances after the accident.

원고는 2015 . 1 . 20 . 이 사건 재해 당일 소외 회사의 거래처인 ○○목장 대표로부터 , 급성 유방염에 걸린 젖소가 있어 ㈜OOOO 약품 ( 아래에서는 ' ○○약품 ' 이라 하겠다 ) 에 약품을 주문해놨으니 이를 가져다달라는 부탁을 받았고 , 이에 위 업무용 차량을 몰고 ○○약품으로 가 ' 킹○○○ ' 라는 연고를 받아서 ○○ 목장에 전달해주었다 .

After the Plaintiff started from ○○ farm, a traffic accident, which is a disaster of this case, has occurred within a five-minute distance. On the Kbro, the Plaintiff was an accident that fell away from 1mpherical field, making Hand late at the latest, and was about 1mphered. Following the accident, the Plaintiff reported the Plaintiff to YO, the representative director of the non-party company, by phoneing the business owner, who was the representative director of the non-party company. The Plaintiff arrived at the site of the accident and sent the Plaintiff to the hospital by using the business owner’s vehicle,

(C) Data and statements about the business status of employees of feed companies, including Nonparty Company

In light of the daily activity report of the non-party company's other business employees Kim ○○, when the combined mixture feed is injured as the main feed of livestock farms, including cattle, the general mixture feed was carried out at the general feed-generating company. In light of the contents of the activity performed by Kim ○ in visiting the non-party company's customer stock farms, it can be confirmed that the business employee has been in charge of overall management arising from the stock farm, including the implementation of blood control, the removal of luminous nets, the repair of agricultural machinery, the repair of necks, the removal of immunity, the enforcement of injection, the enforcement of immunity, the enforcement of ice removal, the operation of purification tanks, the repair of septic tanks, the replacement of vehicles, the exhausting of auto, the exhausting of auto, and the inspection of milk machinery.

The business partners of the non-party company also stated that the employees of the general feed-based feed-based company will purchase medicine when the lawsuit is filed, or assist them in the preparation of the lawsuit, and that all of the employees of other general feed-based feed-based company and the non-party company Kim ○, as required in the stock farm, are replaced by the main food-based company. The other general feed-based company and the non-party company's business employees Kim ○, as required in the stock farm, are leading to the commencement of the lawsuit, and the administration of medicine is also harmful. The business owners statement that the employees of the general feed-based company also provide the stock farm management services that help them perform all incidental duties such as the heart and the stock farm management required in the stock farm in addition to the feed-sale business.

(D) Other circumstances such as trading relations with the non-party company and ○ farm.

○○ farm has continued to engage in transactions with Nonparty Company before and after the instant disaster. On November 25, 2014, Nonparty Company supplied 40 dried feed to Nonparty Company on the ○○ farm on November 25, 2014, and supplied 210 dried milk on March 19, 2015.

On January 20, 2015, the value of supply for ○○○○, which was delivered to the farm by the Plaintiff, shall be the same as the value of supply.

105, 000 won is submitted a statement of transaction that "B" supplied to ○○ farm from congenital livestock.

(2) Whether the instant accident constitutes an occupational accident

As can be seen, in competition with the general feed industry including the non-party company, there have been various practices for its employees to assist them in delivering medicines or maintaining various machinery necessary for the stock farm upon the request of their customers. The plaintiff also received and delivered livestock products necessary for the stock farm by using the non-party company's business vehicle upon the request of its customers ○○○ stock farm as an employee of the non-party company. The traffic accident occurred, and immediately after the traffic accident occurred, the business owner completed the report up to the day before the traffic accident. In light of these circumstances, the plaintiff's business of attracting, maintaining, and managing the livestock products in the stock farm is not simply a business of selling and delivering feed to its customers, but also a business of attracting, maintaining, and managing the livestock products in the stock farm as an employee of the non-party company in charge of the non-party company's business, which is objectively determined as part of the business, or under the management order, and thus, constitutes an employee of the non-party company's general business.

(3) Judgment on the defendant's assertion

The Defendant asserts that it is difficult for the Plaintiff to make a statement on the part of delivering drugs to the head of ○○○○○ (hereinafter “the date and time of the accident”) without clarifying whether the Plaintiff was 21 days or 20 days of the accident, and that the Plaintiff’s statement is not reliable. However, the Plaintiff’s memory for the small portion of the base for which the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care after several months of the traffic accident may not be clear or inaccurate, and the Plaintiff’s overall background of the accident or the Plaintiff’s business form is consistent and explicit. Unlike a subordinate business employee who prepares a daily activity report, it is the most superior position, and it appears that the Plaintiff was directly paying the drug price to the head of ○○○○○ (hereinafter “○○”) and the Plaintiff merely paid the drug price to the head of the household, and it does not seem to be a work of a nature that should be reported to the business owner in advance.

The defendant asserts that the accident of this case does not fall within the scope of risks caused by the plaintiff's total negligence in performing his/her duties.

According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 3, while the plaintiff driving a vehicle at the time, it is known that the traffic accident occurred that falls below the road by leaving the Handphone, leaving the Handphone, while the plaintiff driving the vehicle at the time. However, it is always accompanied by the danger of ordinary traffic accidents in the course of ordinary traffic accidents as the plaintiff who can be called the main business to visit many customers who are given a vehicle to be used for business by the company, and to mislead the customer with the company. The accident in this case entails the risk of ordinary traffic accidents in the course of performing such business. All the injury suffered by the plaintiff is related to the traffic accident. It is also expressed by the defendant's advisory opinion that there is a substantial relation to the traffic accident.

In addition, since the industrial accident compensation insurance under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act differs from the system that compensates for losses caused by tort due to the nature of workers’ livelihood security and its legislative purpose is different, the principle of liability for negligence or the theory of offsetting negligence does not apply to the liability for payment of benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da3826, May 24, 1994; 2010Du4216, Aug. 19, 2010; 2010Du5141, Aug. 19, 2010). Therefore, even if the traffic accident in this case occurred due to the Plaintiff’s negligence, it cannot be interpreted that the Plaintiff’s health care benefit and the right to claim temporary disability compensation benefits is limited solely on the basis thereof.

Meanwhile, Article 37(2) of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act provides that “The injury, disease, disability, or death caused by an employee’s intentional self-injury, or a criminal act or a crime caused thereby shall not be deemed an occupational accident.” However, even though the Plaintiff’s negligence appears to have caused the instant traffic accident, it is difficult to readily conclude that it was the Plaintiff’s intentional act, or constitutes a criminal act, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

All Defendant’s arguments cannot be accepted.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, although the accident of this case constitutes an occupational accident, the defendant's disposition of this case which did not approve the plaintiff's request for the amount of benefits and the amount of resort benefits on different premise is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

If so, we decide to accept the plaintiff's claim and decide as per Disposition.

Judges Park Jae-il