The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal of this case is that the accident of this case occurred without relation to the business before the commencement and commencement of the business, and the accident of this case occurred in the course of Gora where the victimized employee E appeared suddenly, and the injury of the victimized employee cannot be deemed an occupational accident, and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. For the purpose of the relevant legal doctrine work, the waiting time, etc. under the direction and supervision of the employer should be deemed as working hours.

(Article 50(3) of the Labor Standards Act also provides that when the process of departure or retirement of an employee can be deemed to be under the control and management of the employer, any accident that occurred during his/her departure or retirement may also be an occupational accident. As such, including the cases where an employee uses any means of transportation provided by the employer or allowing the employer to use any similar means of transportation, and the cases where the employer appears to be in charge of the employee's choice of the way of departure or retirement, or the case where the employer performs his/her duties during his/her departure or retirement.

In a case where it is deemed that there is no room for choice on the method of departure or discharge due to an urgent administrative affairs related to the affairs before or after the ordinary hours of departure or discharge, or other characteristics of the workplace, etc., and it cannot be deemed that it actually reserved the employee, and that there is a close and close relationship between the disaster and the affairs that occurred during such departure or discharge, the disaster may be deemed to have occurred due to the occupational reasons under the control and management of the employer, on the ground that there is a direct and close relationship between the disaster and the affairs that occurred during such removal or discharge.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du4127, Sept. 25, 2008). Meanwhile, as long as a worker’s intentional self-harm, criminal act, or the cause thereof was not caused, the worker’s negligence is concurrent in the occurrence of the accident.