1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s compensation for survivors and funeral expenses paid to the Plaintiff on June 22, 2016.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the disposition are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was under the control and management of the employer, and the deceased went out of the lock to smoke tobacco during the wedding and was involved in the accident after getting out of the singing door, and it would be reasonable to view that the Plaintiff did not deviate from the normal route of the place of the meeting at the time of the accident as it is in line with social norms and empirical rules. Accordingly, the deceased’s death is in proximate causal relation with his duties.

Therefore, the deceased’s death constitutes occupational accidents, and thus, the instant disposition issued on a different premise is unlawful.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. (1) In the event that an employee of the relevant legal doctrine is suffering from a disaster while participating in an event or a meeting outside the company, the overall process of the event or meeting is under the control or management of the employer in light of circumstances such as the organizer, purpose, content, number of participants and forced participation, methods of operation, burden of expenses, etc. of the event or meeting, and where it is recognized that the employee is in a state of not deviating from the net course of the event or meeting, it can be recognized as an occupational accident.

On the other hand, the proximate causal relation between the work and the accident to recognize the occupational accident under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act is not necessarily required to be proved clearly in medical or natural science, and there is proof even if there is a proximate causal relation between the work and the accident considering all the circumstances.

Therefore, even if there is no direct evidence as to the cause of the disaster, it shall be based on indirect facts.