A. The meaning of a third party under Article 15 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

B. The meaning of workers under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

A. The third party stipulated in Article 15 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to a person who does not have an industrial accident insurance relationship with the victimized worker and is liable for damages due to a tort against the victimized worker. In this case, if the injured worker and the industrial accident compensation insurance policyholder intend to establish an industrial accident insurance relationship, the above victim shall be a worker of the insured.

(b) The term “worker” in the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to the worker as prescribed by the Labor Standards Act, and the worker who is subject to the Labor Standards Act refers to the worker who provides the employer with labor for the purpose of receiving the money and valuables for

(a) Article 15(b) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act; Article 3(2) of the same Act; Article 14 of the Labor Standards Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 77Da1967 delivered on February 14, 1978, 72Do334 delivered on March 28, 1972

Korea

Promotion Company

Seoul Central District Court Decision 85Na572 delivered on October 29, 1985

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul Civil Procedure District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Based on its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant Company, an insured under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, leased the key machine from the Incheon Heavy Co., Ltd. (the insured under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act), and thus, Nonparty 1, an industrial engineer of the above non-party company, who was under the direction and supervision of the Defendant Company in Seoul, at the 328 subway Line 3 in front of Gangnam-gu ( Address omitted), engaged in the business of operating the key machine, was reduced by the negligence of the non-party 2, who is the working cause of the Defendant company, during the mid-term driving at around 08:50 on April 30, 1982, and that the Defendant paid the key machine to the above non-party 1 as medical care benefits and temporary disability compensation benefits under the Act, and that the above accident occurred from the non-party 2's negligence in the execution of the business of the non-party 1, who is an employee of the Defendant, and that the above non-party 2's employer did not have an industrial accident insurance benefit relationship between the Plaintiff 1 and the above insurer.

2. The phrase "a third party under Article 15 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to a person who does not have an industrial accident insurance relationship with a victimized employee and is liable for damages caused by a tort against the victimized employee" is the same as the judgment of the court below (see Supreme Court Decision 7Da1967 delivered on February 14, 1978).

However, in this case, if the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 who is the victim of the industrial accident compensation insurance company intend to establish an industrial accident insurance relationship with the defendant company, the above non-party 1 should be the workers of the defendant company. Under Article 3 (2) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the workers in this Act refer to those who provide labor for the purpose of wages at businesses or workplaces regardless of the type of occupation, and Article 14 of the Labor Standards Act provides that the workers in this Act refers to those who provide labor for the purpose of wages at businesses or workplaces regardless of the type of occupation, and Article 18 of the Labor Standards Act provides that the wages in this Act refers to those who provide labor for the purpose of receiving wages, salary, or any other name from the employer (see Supreme Court Decision 72Do34 delivered on March 28, 1972). Thus, even if the facts established by the court below alone do not constitute an industrial accident insurance relationship between the non-party 1 and the defendant company, the non-party 1 and the non-party company cannot be established as the non-party 1.

The court below determined only the facts as stated in its decision and rejected the plaintiff's claim because the defendant company and the non-party 1 did not consider whether there was an industrial accident insurance relationship such as the provision of labor and the receipt of wages as above, and without examining whether there was a relationship between the defendant company and the non-party 1, there was an error of law such as the definition of workers under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, misunderstanding of legal principles as to the third party under Article 15 of the same Act, incomplete hearing, and lack of reasoning, and this constitutes a ground for reversal under Article

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice) Gangwon-young Kim Young-ju