In a case where Party A stops 45 seconds in front of the intersection located on the normal work route and died of a traffic accident that conflict with the bus operated from the same intersection to the east by the same intersection in accordance with the new subparagraph while coming to the south, and Party B demanded the bereaved family’s benefits and funeral expenses, but the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service determined Party B’s compensation and funeral expenses on the ground that “the main cause of the accident is due to Party A’s violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and it cannot be recognized as an occupational accident under the relevant Act and subordinate statutes due to Party A’s violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents,” the case holding that the above disposition was unlawful on the ground that Party A’s compensation and funeral expenses cannot be deemed as being subject to the application of Article 37(2) main sentence of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, since Party A’s negligence, even if it was partially or partly caused by Party A’s criminal act.

The case is that Gap's spouse Eul claims for survivors' benefits and funeral expenses on the ground that "the main cause of a disaster is due to the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents by Gap's violation of signals under Article 3 (2) 1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, so it shall not be recognized as an occupational accident under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, since the cause of the accident is caused by the act of violation of signals under Article 3 (2) 1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents."

Article 37(2) main text of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act provides that "the injury, self-harm or crime committed by workers or the injury, disease, disability or death caused by such act shall not be deemed an occupational accident," and it is reasonable to interpret that "the act caused by an employee's criminal act" refers to the case where the accident occurred solely or mainly by his own criminal act. In the case of the above intersection, the first main signal, etc. on the driving direction of the vehicle A cannot be viewed as the first main signal, etc. at the time of stopping in line with the stop line, and even if the two main signal, etc. at the intersection are installed on the opposite direction, it is highly probable that the driver is not aware of the existence of the signal, etc. at the opposite direction or even if the signal exists, it cannot be seen as being caused by the defect in the other direction, and even if the passage of the vehicle to the intersection was installed before the passage of the above intersection, it is difficult to determine whether the above traffic accident was in violation of the traffic signal.

Article 5 subparag. 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Article 37(1)3 and (2) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Article 3(2)1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents

Plaintiff (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Cho Sung-ap et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Jeju Special Self-Governing Province

July 21, 2020

1. The disposition that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on February 25, 2020 on the bereaved family’s benefits and funeral expenses shall be revoked.

2. The supplementary part of the costs of lawsuit is borne by the Intervenor, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

From August 1, 2019, the Nonparty (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) served as a worker in charge of customer company management and business management (○) in the profits of a stock company conducting cleaning of buildings, prevention of epidemics, etc. from August 1, 2019.

On October 18, 2019, 08:30 (vehicle No. 1 omitted) the Deceased was driving a car and worked at the office located in the Jeju city ( Address No. 1 omitted) located in the Jeju city ( Address No. 2 omitted). On October 18, 2019, a traffic accident that conflicts with the bus (hereinafter “instant traffic accident”) operating the same intersection from the front stop line (hereinafter “instant intersection”). At the time of Jeju where signal, etc. is installed, the Deceased’s own home to the office is located. The instant intersection stopped for 45 seconds at the normal route from the Deceased’s own home to the office), while entering the same intersection to the south from the north, while the traffic accident that conflicts with the bus (vehicle No. 2 omitted).

Among the instant intersections, two signals are installed on the direction of the vehicle driven by the Deceased. The first week signal, etc. is installed on the stop line before entering the intersection, and the second week signal, etc. are installed on the side of the opposite direction to the intersection.

○○ Deceased transferred to △△△△ Hospital immediately after the occurrence of the instant traffic accident, but died of cerebral blood, etc. on October 18, 2019 (hereinafter “instant disaster”).

On November 28, 2019, the Plaintiff, a wife of the Deceased, requested the Defendant to pay bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses, but the Defendant rendered a decision on February 25, 2020 on the bereaved family’s benefits and funeral expenses (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “The principal cause of the instant accident is confirmed to have occurred due to the violation of the Act pursuant to Article 3(2) subparag. 1 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents by the Deceased, and thus, the cause of the accident cannot be recognized as an occupational accident pursuant to the relevant Act and subordinate statutes due to the total or principal act of the Deceased.”

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap's statements or images, and the purport of the whole pleadings, as to Gap's evidence 1 to 7, 12, 15, 22 (including each number, if any)

2. Relevant statutes;

[Attachment 1] The entry is as follows.

3. Determination on the legality of the disposition

A. The accident that occurred during the worker’s commuting to and from work on the normal route and manner constitutes “occupational accident” under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “Industrial Accident Insurance Act”). As seen earlier, the instant intersection is located on the deceased’s normal work route. As such, the instant accident that occurred while the deceased was on duty while driving a car constitutes occupational accident, barring special circumstances.

B. However, the main text of Article 37(2) of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act provides, “The injury, disease, disability, or death caused by a worker’s intentional or self-harm, or a criminal act or a crime caused thereby shall not be deemed an occupational accident.” Here, it is reasonable to interpret that “the crime committed by a worker is caused solely or mainly by his/her own criminal act” (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du13079, Apr. 27, 2004, etc.).

C. The facts acknowledged earlier, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the aforementioned evidence and the purport of Gap’s statements or video and pleadings Nos. 13, 14, 20, 23, and 3 as well as Eul’s statements or video and pleadings, it cannot be deemed that the instant traffic accident occurred solely or mainly from the deceased’s criminal act of driving signal violations, and it is deemed that the defect in the installation and management of signal lights within the intersection of the instant case caused a considerable cause.

◎ 이 사건 교차로의 경우, 망인 차량 진행방향의 제1주신호등은 정지선 위에 설치되어 있어 정지선에 맞추어 정차한 망인의 시야에서는 제1주신호등을 볼 수 없다.

On the other hand, the south side of the intersection of this case is a structure that makes it difficult for the driver of the vehicle entering the north side to check the opposite direction through a wide road of seven-lanes from the north side, but the second main signal, etc. is installed on the opposite direction, as shown in the image of the photograph (attached Form 2), so it is highly likely for the driver to not recognize the existence of the signal, etc., and even if the signal, etc. is recognized, it is highly likely to perceive it by the signal, etc. in other proceeding direction than its own direction.

◎ 2008. 11. 1. 개정된 교통신호기 설치관리 주1) 매뉴얼 에 의하면, 교차로 건너편에 설치하는 제2주신호등은 진행방향 도로의 중앙에 위치하여야 하고, 배면등(반대방향 차로에 설치되는 신호등)은 설치가 금지된다. 이와 같이 배면등 설치를 금지한 이유는, 배면등을 설치할 경우 운전자가 신호등을 발견하지 못하거나, 다른 진행방향의 신호등으로 착각할 가능성이 높기 때문인 것으로 보이고, 피고보조참가인 역시 그와 같은 문제를 인식하여 제주도 내에 설치된 배면등을 조사·교체하고 있는 중이다.

◎ 망인이 정차한 위치에서는 이 사건 교차로의 서쪽에서 동쪽으로 진행하는 차량을 확인할 수 없고(교차로 모퉁이에 있는 건물 때문에 시야가 제한된다), 동쪽에서 서쪽으로 진행하는 차량들의 통행은 망인이 교차로에 진입하기 전에 끊긴 상황이었으므로, 망인이 주변 교통상황을 살펴 신호 변경 여부를 판단하기도 어려운 상황이었다.

◎ 피고가 이 사건 교통사고에 관하여 조사한 재해조사서(을가 제1호증)에도 재해경위가 “2019. 10. 18.경 자택에서 (동 이름 생략) 소재 사무소로 승용차를 운전하여 출근하던 중 (주소 3 생략) 교차로에서 적색신호 대기 중에 ‘신호 변경상태를 확인하지 못하고’ 북쪽에서 남쪽으로 주행하여 서쪽에서 동쪽으로 녹색신호에 따라 운행하던 버스와 충돌 사망한 재해임”으로 기재되어 있다.

◎ 다른 방향 차선의 교통상황이 확인이 되지 않는 상황에서, 망인이 적색신호임을 인식하고도 무리하게 신호를 위반하면서 이 사건 교차로를 통과해야 할 만한 사정은 찾아보기 어렵다.

D. Therefore, even if there was a part of the deceased’s negligence, so long as the instant accident cannot be deemed solely or mainly caused by the deceased’s criminal act, it does not constitute subject to the main text of Article 37(2) of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act. Thus, the instant disposition is unlawful as it is not recognized as a ground for such disposition, and thus, should be revoked.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-tae (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) Data published by the National Police Agency, not legally binding provisions.