[1] The elements for the recognition of an occupational accident that occurs while simple departure or withdrawal from the office

[2] The case denying an occupational accident on the ground that it cannot be deemed that the process is under the control and management of the business owner in case of a death of an accident in his own car due to his own car for the ordinary Sundays duty

[3] The purport of Article 7(3) of the Act on the Recognition of Occupational Accidents in the Ministry of Labor, which provides that the case of death during a business trip shall apply to an employer’s instruction to death during a business trip.

[1] In order to establish an occupational accident under Article 3(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the pertinent accident must be based on the work performed by the relevant employee, and in order to recognize such occupational recognition, the work performed by the relevant employee should first be premised on the status under the employer’s control, i.e., the work performed by the relevant employee on the basis of his/her labor relations. Even if the act of leaving or leaving office is closely indivisible with the work of providing labor, the work performed cannot be recognized since the method of leaving or leaving office and the selection of the route is reserved to the employee, so it cannot be said that the worker is under the control and management of the ordinary employer. Therefore, if the accident occurred during simple leaving or leaving office is recognized as an occupational accident, the work performed by the employee, such as using the means of transportation provided by the employer or allowing the employer to use the means of transportation corresponding thereto, etc

[2] The case denying an occupational accident on the ground that the course cannot be deemed to be under the control and management of the business owner in case of death of an accident in his own car due to his own car for the ordinary Sundays duty.

[3] The purport of Article 7(3) of the Rules of the Ministry of Labor, which provides that the case of death during a business trip when an accident occurs due to the employer’s instruction during his/her duty-off or retirement, is to treat him/her as equivalent to the case of a business trip, in cases where an employee goes to work on a holiday under the employer’s instruction of his/her duty-free attendance, unlike the ordinary duty-free attendance at ordinary times, because the series of his/her duty-free attendance process is under the employer’s comprehensive control and management, such as the business trip under the employer

[1] [2] Article 3 (1) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 4826 of Dec. 22, 1994) / [3] Article 3 (1) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 4826 of Dec. 22, 1994); Article 7 (3) of the standards for recognition of occupational accidents (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Labor)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 93Nu24186 delivered on April 12, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1499), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu24156 delivered on June 14, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 1976), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu2026 delivered on April 26, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 1751)

Plaintiff (Attorney Jeon Soo-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

On March 6, 1995, the judgment that the defendant revoked the disposition of bereaved family's benefits and funeral site pay to the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

Comprehensively taking account of each of the statements Nos. 1 and 2 evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 1 and 3 evidence Nos. 1 and 3, while the Plaintiff’s husband joined Hyundai Motor Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Non-Party”) on January 5, 1994 and worked as an operating member of Gwangju Motor Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “non-party Co.”), on December 11, 1994, he was on duty at work for Sundays on his own (vehicle number omitted) and was on duty at the early 10:30, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have been on the ground that the Plaintiff’s death was on duty against the Defendant’s previous Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Labor No. 456, Dec. 15, 1994; No. 2014, Apr. 21, 196).

2. Whether the site pay disposition of this case is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

According to Article 7(3) of the Rules on the Recognition of Occupational Accidents in the Ministry of Labor, the plaintiff provided that "the provisions of paragraph (1) shall apply mutatis mutandis to cases where a worker dies due to an accident that occurs when he/she leaves office or leaves office to perform his/her duties on a holiday under the direction of the employer." Thus, the above deceased was in attendance at the company to perform the duty of watchkeeping, and this case was deceased during the implementation of the business owner's order to provide special services on a holiday. Thus, the accident of this case is governed by the above rules and regulations, and the defendant's disposition of this case against this case was unlawful, despite that the above rules and regulations are applied mutatis mutandis to the accident of this case, the accident of this case cannot be deemed to be an accident under the control and management of the business owner. Thus, the above deceased's death is a non-occupational accident, and therefore, the disposition

(b) recognised facts;

On December 11, 1994, when the above deceased worked as an employee of the non-party company Gwangju metropolitan business, he was killed on the 15th 21:30th of the same month while he was injured due to a traffic accident that intrudes with the central line and was hospitalized for the other party due to a collision with the other party on the side of the Seocho-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City at the early 10:30, when he worked as an employee of the non-party company Gwangju metropolitan business, the fact that he died on the 15th 21:30 of the same month during which he was hospitalized. In full view of the written statements in subparagraph 2-2, subparagraph 2, 3, and subparagraph 4 and the purport of oral argument, the head of the business office in the non-party company Gwangju metropolitan metropolitan business, regardless of the nature of the business office, etc., the duty hours are uniformly determined on the first-month work day of his employees for one-month, Saturdays, and it is divided into Sundays, and there is no other counter-proof evidence.

(c) Markets:

Article 3(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act provides that "the term "the occupational accident is an occupational accident" means an injury, disease, physical disability, or death of a worker due to an occupational reason. Thus, in order to establish an occupational accident, the accident must be caused by the occupational accident, and in order to recognize such occupational recognition, the work performance should first be premised upon the worker's status under the employer's control based on his/her employment relationship, i.e., work performance. In order for the worker to be recognized. Even if the act of departure or retirement is closely indivisible with the work of providing labor, the method of departure or retirement and the selection of the route are generally reserved to the worker, so it cannot be recognized that the work performance cannot be recognized as being performed since the worker's choice is reserved to the worker, and therefore, the worker's departure or retirement process is under the control and management of the employer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Nu16939, May 11, 1993; 200Nu1939794, May 1909, 19909.).

According to the above facts, the duty on Sundays of the non-party company is characterized by the ordinary duty of the non-party company, not by the business owner's order of emergency duty or special duty order, but by the unique nature of the business. On the other hand, the above deceased's duty on duty is allowed to work until 09:00, but he died due to traffic accident around 10:30, in violation of the company's order on duty hours. The above deceased's duty on duty is not the means of transportation provided by the business owner or any other similar means of transportation, and it cannot be deemed that the above deceased's work on duty is reserved to the above deceased's work on duty because the former's voluntary selection of the method and course of duty is difficult to be viewed as being under the control and management of the non-party company, which is the business owner's duty on duty, and the above worker's duty on duty cannot be viewed as being under the control of the above company's comprehensive duty on duty's duty of care, and the criteria for the above worker's duty of care for physical injury or internal accident.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation on the premise that the disposition of this case is unlawful is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Shin Jae-sung (Presiding Judge)