[1] Requirements for an accident that occurred during departure or withdrawal from office to constitute "occupational accident" under Article 4 (1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

[2] The case holding that if a traffic accident occurs while a member of the company is driving and serving in his own car, it cannot be deemed that the process of commuting was under the control and management of the user, and it does not constitute an occupational accident

[1] The term "occupational accident" under Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to an accident caused by an employee's performance of his/her duties or ordinary activities incidental thereto under the control and management of the employer based on his/her employment contract with the employer. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the employee is under the control or management of the employer because he/she can select the method and route. Therefore, the accident that occurred during his/her departure or retirement can be recognized as an occupational accident. Thus, it should be deemed that the employee's departure or retirement process is under the control and management of the employer by using the means of transportation, such as vehicles provided by the employer or by allowing the employer to use the means of transportation corresponding thereto.

[2] The case holding that, in case where a company member voluntarily selected the method of attendance and the route of attendance, and caused a traffic accident causing a traffic accident involving the center line while driving his own vehicle and working at the workplace, even though the company subsidized the oil of the vehicle, the company's right to manage and use the vehicle actually belongs to the above members, so it cannot be deemed that the above company's commuting process at the time of the accident was under the control and management of the company, the traffic accident caused by the company member does not constitute an occupational accident.

[1] Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act / [2] Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 95Nu6946 delivered on September 15, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3435) Supreme Court Decision 95Nu16769 delivered on February 9, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 982) Supreme Court Decision 96Nu10843 delivered on November 15, 1996

Plaintiff

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 96Gu26260 delivered on June 24, 1997

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The term "occupational accidents" under Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to accidents caused by an employee's performance of his/her duties or ordinary activities incidental thereto under the control and management of the employer under an employment contract with the employer. Thus, it cannot be deemed that an employee in commuting to his/her departure or retirement is under the control or management of the employer in general because he/she can choose the method and route thereof. Therefore, the accidents caused during his/her departure or retirement should fall under cases where the employee's departure or retirement process can be deemed to be under the control and management of the employer by using the means of transportation, such as vehicles provided by the employer, or by allowing the employer to use the similar means of transportation (see Supreme Court Decisions 95Nu6946, Sept. 15, 1995; 95Nu1679, Feb. 9, 196; 96Nu10843, Nov. 15, 196, etc.).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, even if the non-party 1, who is the plaintiff, joined the non-party corporation (hereinafter the non-party corporation) on April 11, 1994 and was working as a construction engineer at the factory extension work site of the non-party 1 corporation located in the non-party 1 corporation (hereinafter the non-party corporation), the court below determined that the non-party 1, who was on the non-party 1, was on duty using the non-party 1's own car to work on September 29, 1995 after driving the non-party 1's vehicle, starting the house of the non-party 1's station located in the non-party 2's station located in the non-party 1, the non-party 1 was on duty using the non-party 1's own car to work on the non-party 1's own, and was on duty at the non-party 25-party 1, who was on duty before the accident scene and did not directly use the vehicle's work on the non-party 1.

In light of the records and the legal principles as seen earlier, the fact-finding and decision of the court below is just, and the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to mistake of facts or occupational accidents due to violation of the rules of evidence as otherwise alleged in the ground

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cho Chang-hun (Presiding Justice)