2010Guhap1306 Revocation of Disposition of Non-approval for Medical Care

이○○ ( xXXXXX - XXXXXXX )

-00 square meters 00 square meters -

Attorney Park Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 0000 - - Violation

The place of delivery - Gwangju Northern-gu - Do Governor of the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Dogna Dog

Representative ○○ & & 2

- The litigation performer - - red, the lowest, the litigation performer

November 23, 2010

December 21, 2010

1. On March 25, 2010, the Defendant revoked the disposition of non-approval for medical care granted to the Plaintiff.

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

The order is as set forth in the text.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings in the entries in Gap evidence 1-1-3 and Gap evidence 3:

A. On February 18, 2010, 05: Around 00: (a) the Plaintiff driven the instant vehicle at around 00, 27Da852 (hereinafter “the instant vehicle”) and was working at the Plaintiff’s public wholesale market for the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ Cooperative located in the Plaintiff’s domicile, at the Plaintiff’s domicile, at the Plaintiff’s domicile, due to a traffic accident involving the said vehicle due to the breakdown of the vehicle near the 000-round the 000-round 00-round the 00-round 00-round the Simsan-si, and caused the injury, such as the uppermost of the left-hand edge and the left-hand pelle of the utility line (hereinafter “instant accident”).

B. On March 2010, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits for industrial accident compensation insurance, asserting that the instant accident to the Defendant was an accident at work, and the Plaintiff’s injury constitutes occupational accident.

C. On March 25, 2010, the Defendant approved the Plaintiff’s application for medical care benefits on the ground that the instant accident was a traffic accident that occurred during work, and that the said accident was not a means of transportation provided by the business owner for commuting, but a car for the Plaintiff’s own use of the vehicle. Thus, the Plaintiff’s injury did not constitute occupational accident (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In full view of the fact that it is impossible for the Plaintiff to leave without a private vehicle from the Plaintiff’s residence to the workplace, the Plaintiff’s injury is an accident that occurred during the Plaintiff’s work under the control and management of the employer, and thus, the instant disposition that is otherwise reported is unlawful, inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s injury is an accident that occurred during the Plaintiff’s work at work under the control and management of the employer, taking into account the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s vehicle subsidy of KRW 200,000 per month is paid at △△△△△△△△△△△△△, the employer, and the route of the Plaintiff’s work chosen by the Plaintiff is the optimal and lowest route.

(b) Related statutes;

As shown in the attached Form.

(c) Facts of recognition;

다음 각 사실은 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없거나 , 갑 제2호증의 1 내지 4 , 갑 제7 , 8 호증의 각 기재 , 증인 양♤☆의 증언 , 이 법원의 □△△△△△△△조합장에 대한 사실 조회결과에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 이를 인정할 수 있다 .

(1) Details of the Plaintiff’s business

( 가 ) 원고는 2009 . 7 . 1 . □△△△△△△△조합에 입사하여 ♥ ◇◇◇◇◇조합 농산물 공영 도매시장에서 경리업무를 담당하였다 .

(B) The plaintiff shall normally work up to 05: 30, and shall work for 14:00 and retire at 30:0, and work for Saturdays.

(2) The Plaintiff’s methods of withdrawing and leaving the Plaintiff, and the background of the instant accident

( 가 ) 원고는 평소 주거지인 군산시 00면 00리 에서 남자친구인 소외 신 > ♤ 소유의 이 사건 차량을 운전하여 익산 목천동 소재 □△△△△△△△조합 농산물 공영 도매시장으로 통근하는데 , 위 주거지에서 근무지까지의 거리는 16km 정도이고 , 차 량을 이용할 경우 약 30분 정도 소요되며 , 원고의 주거지에서 근무지까지 출근시간에 맞추어 이용할 수 있는 대중교통수단은 없다 .

(B) Employees of the public wholesale market of △△△△△△△△ Cooperative are 19 persons including the Plaintiff, and all personal vehicles are sent out and retired, and there is no vehicle provided by employees for the withdrawal and removal of employees who work in the public wholesale market of the said agricultural products in the Dogsan Agricultural Cooperatives.

(C) On February 18, 2010: 05: (a) while driving the instant vehicle on or around 00, the Plaintiff suffered an injury, such as a bar dump, etc. on the left-hand side due to a traffic accident where the said vehicle dumpeds down on the snowway and the utility pole dumpeds around 000, while working in the military. The place where the instant accident occurred is located is located in the optimal and shortest way from the Plaintiff’s residence to the workplace.

D. Determination

(1) Generally, even if commuting to and from work is closely related to the business of providing labor, insofar as the method of commuting to and from work and the selection of the route is reserved by the worker, the accident that happens while commuting to and from work cannot be a occupational accident solely on the ground that the selection of the route is ordinary. However, if commuting to and from work can be deemed under the control and management of the employer, the accident that happens during commuting to and from work can also be an occupational accident (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2005Du12572 delivered on September 28, 207, 200, 2005Du12572 delivered on September 20, 207, 200). It cannot be seen that the method of commuting to and from work and the method of commuting to and from work of 20 percent of the total number of employees or the method of commuting to and from work and the method of commuting to and from work can not be seen as being closely related to commuting to and from work or those of 20 percent of the average number of employees.

(2) The following circumstances revealed by the overall purport of the above facts and arguments are as follows: (i) the distance from the Plaintiff’s residential area to the public wholesale market of △△△△△△△△ Cooperative agricultural products to the Plaintiff’s public wholesale market is about 16 kilometers for use of a vehicle; (ii) there is no other means of transportation that can work up to 05:30 hours of the Plaintiff’s business in the situation where the Plaintiff’s △△△△△△△△△△△△ Cooperative did not provide a transit bus, etc. for employees; (iii) all employees of the public wholesale market of △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ Group’s public wholesale market of agricultural products are going out and set off by personal vehicles; (iv) the Plaintiff’s use of public transportation means to move from the Plaintiff’s residential area to the optimal and shortest route, and thus, it is unreasonable for the Plaintiff to expect the Plaintiff to select and retire from the Plaintiff’s workplace due to an accident other than the Plaintiff’s personal means of transportation.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.

Judges Gangseo-gu of the presiding judge

Kim Jin-jin

Heading bonds

Related Acts and subordinate statutes

【Reemwa Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act】