2010 old-gu 35 Medical Care Non-approval Revocation

Kim’s “Military Affairs” (hereinafter “Military Affairs”)

Daejeon Dong-gu, Dong-gu

Daejeon District Court Decision 200

Attorney Han-won

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 2 Aepo-dong 94-267

Seo-gu Daejeon District Court 2, Seo-gu, Daejeon 929 Private School Pension Center 17 floors

Representative President Kim Won-won

Litigation Performers Lee Sang-hee

March 18, 2010

April 1, 2010

1. On July 28, 2009, the defendant revoked the disposition not to grant medical treatment to the plaintiff on July 28, 2009.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The order is as set forth in the text.

1. Details of the disposition;

가 . 대전도시공사 환경미화원으로 근무하던 원고는 2009 . 7 . 6 . 03 : 21경 근무를 마치 고 자신의 오토바이 ( 대전 동 * * * * 호 ) 를 운전하여 대전 서구 도마 2동 동사무소를 출 발해서 대전 동구 가양동 433의 28 소재 자택으로 귀가하던 중 , 대전 중구 문화동 세 이백화점 앞 4차로 도로 중 3차로를 따라 지나다가 , 마침 진행방향 우측에서 좌측으로 무단횡단하던 소외 신♤♧와 충돌하여 넘어지면서 ' 좌측 경골 간부 비전위골절 ' 이라는 부상을 입게 되었다 .

B. Accordingly, the plaintiff's injury constitutes an occupational accident under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

On July 21, 2009, the Defendant applied for the approval of medical care to the Defendant. However, on July 28, 2009, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition that rejected the Plaintiff’s application on July 28, 2009 on the ground that the Defendant did not recognize the Plaintiff’s application on the ground that the Plaintiff did not have any means of transportation provided by the business owner on the part of the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff paid the Plaintiff separate expenses related to the withdrawal and withdrawal by Ortoa, and that the management and use right of Ortoa is not under the control of the business owner, and the said injury cannot be deemed an occupational accident under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

[Ground for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, 3, and 4, Eul evidence 1-1, and Eul evidence 2, oral argument

The purport of the whole

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The new wall time of the Plaintiff’s retirement was not a means of public transportation, other than a taxi, so the Plaintiff was in a situation where it was impossible for the Plaintiff to use it to return home located far away from 2 Doma, a place of work, and the business owner was aware of such circumstances, and thus, the Plaintiff’s departure and retirement was under the control and management of the business owner. Thus, the Plaintiff’s father’s retirement during the retirement hours constituted an occupational accident. However, the disposition of this case, which was otherwise reported, was unlawful.

(b) Facts of recognition;

(1) The plaintiff was affiliated with the Daejeon Urban Corporation and has been working as a street cleaners since 1992.

(2) The working hours are from 8 p.m. to 4 a.m. on the following day every day.

(3) During the time period during which the Plaintiff leaves and leaves, a bus for commuting to the air was not provided by the business owner, and a bus for commuting to the air was not operated at the time of leaving the air, and the Plaintiff used the otobane at the time of leaving and leaving the air.

(4) If the Plaintiff used the means of public transportation without using the off-to-land, the means of public transportation available at the time of leaving the taxi is only a taxi. If the Plaintiff exceeds KRW 950,00 for the bus cost required at the time of leaving the taxi due to the Plaintiff’s demand for approximately KRW 6,90 for each 196,250 for the bus cost required at the time of leaving the taxi.

(5) The Plaintiff was working in the Dong office with the Doma 2 Dong office around the place of work where the Plaintiff was working and parked the sib, and then worked in the area assigned by the Do 2 Dong office with the siba, and then parked the siba in the Do 2 Dong office with the Do ma 2 Dong office with the siba for the business at the time of retirement. The Plaintiff was on the Do 2 Dong office with the siba siba siba siba siba siba siba siba siba and returned home, and the Do 8.

(6) Although the Daejeon Urban Corporation was aware of the Plaintiff’s aforementioned departure and retirement methods, it did not separately pay the Plaintiff a separate expense for supporting withdrawal and retirement, such as fuel expenses, insurance premiums, vehicle maintenance expenses, etc. However, it paid a monthly amount of KRW 140,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, in terms of the cost of transportation as an allowance.

(7) The average monthly wage received by the Plaintiff from January 2009 to June 2009, immediately before the instant traffic accident occurred, is 380 million won per month, which is below the average monthly income of 4 million won per month for 4 million urban workers, based on the monthly average income of 4 million won, and the actual amount received is less than this.

(8) The Plaintiff’s family members are wife and two ancillarys, and form the same household as the Plaintiff.

(9) The foregoing traffic accident occurred on the route of normal entry and retirement.

[Ground for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 6, Gap evidence 7-1, 2, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 2

3-1, 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

(1) The term "occupational accidents" under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to accidents caused by occupational accidents resulting from the performance of the relevant work or the conduct incidental thereto under the control and management of the business owner by putting the worker and the employer into the workplace. However, even though it is closely indivisible to the business of providing labor, it cannot be said that the choice of the worker is ordinarily reserved to the worker, and that the worker is subject to the control and management of the ordinary business owner. Unless there is a special provision that recognizes the accidents that occur during his/her departure or retirement by ordinary method and warning, it cannot be said that the occupational accidents occurred during his/her work-related 20 days, including the case of 20 days, on the ground that the worker's choice of the method and route of departure or retirement at his/her option is ordinary. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the occupational accidents occurred during his/her work-related 20 days, including the case of 20 days, during his/her work-related 20 days, during his/her work-related or her retirement.

However, the employer’s taking measures such as providing workers with means of transportation or allowing them to use a similar means of transportation is one requisition to determine that the process of departure or retirement of workers is under the control and management of the employer. In order to determine that the process of departure or retirement of workers is under the control and management of the employer, as well as the above resignation, it appears that the method of departure or retirement is under the control and management of the employer, and that the selection of the route is under the control and management of the worker, or that the worker was under the control and management of the worker, or that the worker was under the control and management of the worker, 60 hours before and after the departure or retirement, 200 hours after the retirement or under the control and management of the worker, 60 hours after the retirement or 200 hours after the retirement or 200 days after the retirement or retirement of the worker, and where it is judged that there is a close relation with the worker’s affairs to the extent of common understanding (see Supreme Court Decision 202Du1584, Dec. 24, 2019

(2) As to the instant case, considering the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff was in the absence of any particular means of transportation except for the taxi at night and in-depth work; (b) the Plaintiff’s allowance paid to the Plaintiff compared to his weekly workers is not more than KRW 40,00,000; and (c) it is not realistic to demand the Plaintiff to use a taxi whenever he leaves the Plaintiff, which shows the average monthly income level for urban workers; (b) in such circumstances, the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the Plaintiff was using the Hatoba as a means of departure and leaving, and did not take any measures; and (c) the instant school accident appears to have been in the Plaintiff’s normal route of departure and leaving the school, the Plaintiff’s choice was left to the Plaintiff; and (d) it is not reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff was in the process of management and leaving the workplace under the Plaintiff’s choice; and (e) it is not reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff was in the process of management and leaving the workplace.

(3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s injury that occurred during his retirement hours constitutes occupational accident, and the instant disposition that was taken differently from this, was unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case, which is unlawful and sought revocation of the disposition of this case, is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.

Judge Lee associate-hoon