logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2015.11.12 2013두25276
요양불승인처분취소
Text

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Where a worker is suffering from an accident while participating in an event or a meeting other than a company which is not prescribed as one which is not ordinarily liable for an employment contract, and where it is intended to recognize it as an occupational accident, the overall process of the event or meeting must first be in the state of being controlled or managed by the employer in light of circumstances such as the organizer, purpose, contents, number of participants, forcedness, methods of operation, burden of expenses, etc. of the event or meeting, and the worker must not deviate from such an event or meeting’s usual course;

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Du6717 Decided November 15, 2007). In addition, in a case where a proximate causal relation is acknowledged between the above accidents, if an employee’s drinking exceeding his/her liquor is the principal cause and the injury or disability was caused or died, it can be deemed that the occupational accident under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act is an occupational accident.

However, whether there is a proximate causal relationship between the business and the accident should be determined with careful consideration of various circumstances, such as whether an employer has recommended or forced drinking, or whether drinking was conducted voluntarily by the employee’s own judgment and intent, the amount of drinking alcohol to other workers, other than the worker affected by the disaster, is certain degree, whether the disaster is within the scope of ordinary risks associated with the process of a briefing session related to his/her duties, and whether the disaster is not a disaster that occurred through other abnormal routes unrelated to the mental and physical disorder caused by the ceremony or overwork.

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the Plaintiff is a counselor belonging to the ABR team of the non-party company, and from July 6, 2012 to 21:15 on the same day.

arrow