Plaintiff 1 and five others (Attorney Jeon full-time, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

March 17, 2010

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2009Guhap17957 decided July 24, 2009

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's disposition on March 10, 2009 against the plaintiffs as bereaved family benefits and funeral site wages shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: “after employment,” of the first instance part of the third part, adding “after employment, 150,000 won per day,” and the first instance court’s reasoning is the same, except for the revision of the fifth to the sixth to the fifth to the fifth to the fifth to the fifth to the fifth to the fifth to the fifth to the fifth to the fifth to the following. As such, this is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the text of

In addition, according to the "Act on the Collection of Insurance Premiums, etc. for Employment Insurance and Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance", the owner of a business subject to the "Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act" is naturally a policyholder of the industrial accident compensation insurance under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (Article 5(3)), and the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service stipulates that the industrial accident insurance premium shall be collected from the policyholder in order to cover the expenses for the insurance business (Article 13(1)2). In a case where a business aimed at criminal acts is deemed to constitute a business as prescribed by Article 6(1)2 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the business owner is naturally deemed to be the policyholder, and the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service cannot expect to collect the insurance premium from the business owner, and ultimately, the financial aggravation of the industrial accident compensation insurance business is caused. In this regard, a

With respect to this case, in violation of the provisions of Articles 21(1), 26(1), 28 subparag. 3, and 32(1)1 and 7 of the Game Industry Promotion Act in the game site of this case, non-party 1 et al. provided game products without permission for use and encourage speculation through free gifts, etc. while running a game room business without permission, and operated the game site for exchange of free gifts acquired by customers in the game room, and was subject to criminal punishment for this reason. Non-party 1 et al. resumed, et al. resumed the game site business of this case around December 25, 2007, which were controlled by the police around a short time after the previous game site on December 11, 2007, and first, the illegal nature of the game site business of this case, such as taking measures to avoid the police control for illegal game place business, and in light of the fact that the establishment of the game site of this case or the industrial accident of this case cannot be seen as the establishment of an industrial accident insurance system of this case by the State or the industrial accident.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion that the game site of this case constitutes a workplace under the Industrial Accident Insurance Act is without merit.

In addition, the plaintiffs asserted that, as long as the game site of this case falls under the business exempt from the Industrial Accident Insurance Act, the deceased did not constitute a worker under the Industrial Accident Insurance Act, as long as the game site of this case falls under the business exempt from the Industrial Accident Insurance Act, the deceased's work in the game site of this case, the circumstances leading up to the deceased's work in the game site of this case, the structure, occupation and operation method of the game site of this case, the amount paid by the deceased's daily wages, the duties performed in the game site of this case by the deceased and the circumstances leading to the occurrence of the accident of this case, the deceased shall be deemed to have sufficiently recognized that the operation of the game site of this case constitutes criminal acts or illegal operation of the game site of this case.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case is all legitimate.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' claims shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and all of the plaintiffs' appeals are dismissed as it is without merit and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges, equipment (Presiding Judge)