Requirements for accidents that occur in the course of transit to constitute occupational accidents;

Even if the worker's commuting is closely related to the business of providing labor, it is generally difficult to say that the choice of the commuting method and route is reserved to the worker, and it is under the control and management of the ordinary business owner. Therefore, the worker's commuting process should be considered to be 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 similar means of transportation.

Article 3(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Domin-young and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-

Plaintiff

The head of the Changwon Regional Labor Office

Busan High Court Decision 92Gu5058 delivered on November 10, 1993

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Even though workers' commuting to work is closely related to the business of providing labor, it cannot be said that the choice of commuting method and route is ordinarily reserved to workers and under the control and management of the ordinary business owner. Thus, it should be viewed that the worker's commuting to work 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 allowing the business owner to use the means of transportation corresponding thereto, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Nu16805, May 11, 1993; 93Nu5970, Sept. 14, 1993).

Upon examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, we affirm the judgment below that the court below recognized the facts of the judgment and judged that it is inappropriate for the plaintiff to use the commuting means provided by the company, and attached a certificate of access issued by the company to the above Orala, and even if there was a timely use of Orala, such circumstance alone does not lead to the plaintiff to get the company to commute to and from work with the above Orala, or the plaintiff's commuting process was under the control and management of the company. It cannot be said that there was an error of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit.

All arguments are without merit.

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 Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)