Requirements to constitute occupational accidents under Article 3 (1) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act in which an accident occurred during the time of departure or retirement falls under the category of occupational accidents.

Article 3(1) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 4826 of Dec. 22, 1994) refers to an occupational accident caused by an employee’s occupational performance in the course of performing his/her duties under the control, management, or ordinary activities incidental thereto under the employer’s employment contract with the employer. Thus, an employee in the course of his/her departure or retirement is generally able to choose the method and route, and it cannot be deemed that the employee is under the employer’s control or management. Therefore, if the accident that occurred during his/her departure or retirement is recognized as an occupational accident, it should be deemed that the employee’s departure or retirement process is under the control and management of the employer by using means of transportation such as vehicles provided by the employee or by allowing the employee to use a similar means of transportation.

Article 3 (1) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 4826 of Dec. 22, 1994) (see Article 4 (1) of the current Act)

Supreme Court Decision 92Nu13073 delivered on January 19, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 745) Supreme Court Decision 92Nu16805 delivered on May 11, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 1730) Supreme Court Decision 95Nu6946 delivered on September 15, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 3435)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Dom General Law Office, Attorneys Park Jong-Gyeong et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu17361 delivered on October 10, 1995

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

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

1. Examining the evidence established by the court below, the fact-finding of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of law by failing to comply with the reasoning, the rule of experience, or the rules of evidence or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, such as the litigation theory, and therefore, the arguments are without merit.

2. The term "occupational accidents" under Article 3 (1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to occupational accidents caused by the worker's occupational performance under the control and management of the employer under an employment contract with the employer, or the ordinary activities incidental thereto. Thus, an employee on leaving or leaving the workplace cannot be viewed as being under the control or management of the employer since he/she could select the method and route generally, and therefore, the accident occurring during leaving or leaving the workplace cannot be viewed as being under the control or management of the employer, and therefore, it shall be applicable to cases where the worker's leaving or leaving the workplace can be seen as being under the control or management of the employer by using the means of transportation such as vehicles provided by the employer or by allowing the user to use the similar means of transportation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Nu6946, Sep. 15, 1995; 92Nu13073, Jan. 19, 1993; 92Nu16805, May 11, 1993).

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

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

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)