Plaintiff 1 and five others (Law Firm Roz, Attorneys Lee Dong-ia, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

July 1, 2009

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

The defendant's disposition of bereaved family's benefits and funeral expenses against the plaintiffs on March 10, 2009 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The non-party 1, the deceased non-party 3, and the non-party 4 (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party 1, etc.") made a financial investment, the deceased non-party 3 will take charge of technical parts, such as the operation of the game room, the repair of the game room by the non-party 4, respectively, and the Dong business from October 2, 2007 to December 11, 2007, the defendant employed the deceased non-party 5 (date of birth) and the deceased non-party 6 (date of birth) with an employee from the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 3, and the deceased non-party 4 (date of birth) installed the game room and operated the illegal game room without permission, from December 25, 2007 to December 26, 207, the non-party 1 and the employees of the above non-party 2 (date of birth) were omitted in the above game room (hereinafter referred to as "non-party 27).

B. At the time, the game room located above (detailed address 1 omitted) was operated in the game room by installing four kinds of stib in addition to the room to avoid police crackdown and opening a door after confirming that the stib is a customer. The outside of the game room was removed from hand, opening a door inside the room using stibs, opening the door inside the door, making the customer enter the room, installing soundproof ceiling at the inside entrance of the game room, and installing and operating a toilet at will in order to prevent customers from leaving outside the room.

C. On December 11, 2007, when the above (3) game room was controlled by the police around December 11, 2007, Nonparty 1, etc. received the machines used in the above game room and intended to resume the installation and business of the game room in this case. Accordingly, around the 24th day before the opening of the game room in this case, the game machine used in the game room in this case (3) was accepted.

D. In order to avoid police control, Non-party 3 requested Non-party 8 to have an additional metal locking device installed on the outside steel entrance door, and requested Non-party 8 to have a business trip. On December 26, 2007, Non-party 8 performed a locking device at the game site of this case, which is the only entrance door, in order to install locking device at the game site of this case, moved the locking device from the outer steel entrance door, which is the only entrance door, to a soundproof, attached to the inside inside of the steel door and the inner wall, and caused a large quantity of poisonous gas by rapidly spreading the wall length and the ceiling inside the game site.

E. On December 26, 2007, the deceased non-party 5 and the deceased non-party 7, who worked as an employee of the game room at the time of the fire, died due to the quality of toxic gas, around 18:18, 207. The deceased non-party 6, who is an employee of the game room, transferred the game room to the Ansan Hospital of the Korea University Medical Center, but died due to the low-carbon brain damage around January 8, 2008 (hereinafter “the instant accident”).

F. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased non-party 5, and the plaintiffs 3 and 4 are the parents of the deceased non-party 7, and the plaintiffs 5 and 6 are the parents of the deceased non-party 6. The plaintiffs filed a claim for survivors' benefits and funeral expenses with the defendant that the death of the deceased non-party 5, the deceased non-party 7, and the deceased non-party 6 (hereinafter "the deceased") constituted occupational accidents. However, on March 10, 2009, the defendant dismissed the plaintiffs' claim on the ground that the game site of this case is in violation of the social order that constitutes criminal crimes, and thus it cannot be viewed as the business or place to which the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act applies (hereinafter "the disposition of this case").

G. On May 29, 2008, Nonparty 1 and 4 were convicted of violating the Game Industry Promotion Act, etc. on the ground of criminal facts, such as providing game products without permission for use and free gifts, and promoting speculation by providing free gifts, etc. obtained by customers in a game room. On May 29, 2008, Nonparty 1 and 4 was convicted of having committed a violation of the Game Industry Promotion Act, etc.

【Ground of recognition】 The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 3-1 to Gap evidence 7-3, Eul evidence 1 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Industrial Accident Insurance Act”) does not stipulate that the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act applies to all businesses or workplaces that employ workers and limits the application of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act to illegal workplaces. The Deceased, without recognizing that the game site of this case is illegal, was employed by Nonparty 1, etc. and worked as employees, and does not directly operate illegal businesses that are contrary to social order. The instant accident caused by the fire in the game site of this case constitutes occupational accidents, but the Defendant’s disposition rejecting the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses by deeming the game site of this case as an exception business under the Industrial Accident

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

According to Article 6 of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act, all businesses that employ workers shall be applied in principle, but the business that is not subject to the application shall be decided by referring to risk rates, scale, place of business, etc. In this context, the term "business" refers to the continuous operation for business as a business under an organic organization at a certain place. Even if the business is continuously conducted once or temporarily, it shall be subject to the Industrial Accident Insurance Act even if the business is conducted one time or temporarily. However, if the business is prohibited due to various laws and regulations, and if the prohibition provisions are violated, it shall not be subject to criminal punishment, the business under the Industrial Accident Insurance Act, which the State is obligated to protect in accordance with the policy.

As seen earlier, Nonparty 1, etc. engaged in the game of this case in violation of the provisions of Articles 21(1), 26(1), 28 subparag. 3, 32(1)1, and 7 of the Game Industry Promotion Act by providing ungraded game products and providing free gifts, etc. to use the game in the game of this case. Meanwhile, the deceased was employed by Nonparty 1, etc. as an employee of the game of this case and served in the game of this case as an employee of the game of this case, and caused the death of the game of this case. Considering the circumstances leading up to the death of the deceased, the method and type of operation of the game of this case, and the duties performed by the deceased in the game of this case, etc., in full view of the facts that the game of this case constitutes criminal offenses, etc., the deceased's participation in the above criminal act is not subject to the duty of the State to protect the deceased from the above business or insurance of this case. Accordingly, the deceased's assertion that there is no reason to protect the above business or insurance of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Hong-do (Presiding Judge)