[1] Requirements for an accident that occurred during departure or withdrawal from office to constitute "occupational accident" under Article 4 (1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below that in case where a worker died due to a traffic accident while driving his/her own car and leaving the school, it does not constitute an occupational accident on the grounds that the process of leaving the school is not controlled and managed by the enterpriser and cannot be viewed as using the means of transportation provided by the enterpriser

[1] The accident that occurred at the time of departure or retirement of a worker is closely and partly related to the business of providing labor, but generally, it cannot be said that the method of departure or retirement and the selection of the route is reserved to the worker and is under the control and management of the ordinary business owner. Thus, it should be deemed that the process of departure or retirement of the worker is under the control and management of the business owner, such as the worker's use of the means of transportation provided by the business owner or the business owner's use of the means of transportation corresponding thereto, etc.

[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below that in case where a worker died due to a traffic accident while driving his/her own car and leaving the school, it does not constitute an occupational accident on the grounds that the process of leaving the school is not controlled and managed by the enterpriser and cannot be viewed as using the means of transportation provided by the enterpriser.

[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] [2] Supreme Court Decision 95Nu6946 delivered on September 15, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3435), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu10843 delivered on November 15, 1996, Supreme Court Decision 97Nu1309 delivered on November 14, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 380) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 95Nu16769 delivered on February 9, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 982)

Plaintiff

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 99Nu2705 delivered on July 1, 1999

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

An accident that occurred at the time of departure or retirement of an employee is closely related to the business of providing labor service, but generally, it cannot be said that the method of departure or retirement and the selection of the route is reserved to the employee and is under the control and management of the ordinary business owner. Thus, the process of departure or retirement of an employee should be deemed to be under the control and management of the business owner, such as where the worker uses the means of transportation provided by the business owner or allowing the business owner to use the means of transportation equivalent thereto, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Nu16769, Feb. 9, 196; 95Nu6946, Sept. 15, 1995; 94Nu1523, Mar. 14, 1995).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the death caused by the above traffic accident of the deceased cannot be deemed as an occupational accident under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, on the ground that, although the deceased worked until 1st day on the day of the accident and died due to a traffic accident during which he returned home, it was difficult for the branch office of the non-party company to use other means of transportation, such as taxi, etc. at the time of returning home, and that the head of the branch office of the non-party company was confirmed not a drunk driving, was proper, and at the same time, he was ordered not to delay working hours on the day. The non-party company paid fuel expenses, parking fees, etc. to many business employees who used the vehicle for his work as the deceased, and subsidized the purchase of the vehicle, such circumstance alone does not constitute a means of transportation corresponding to those provided by the non-party company, which is under the control and management of the non-party company, or

In light of the records and the above legal principles, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to occupational accidents as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the 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 Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)