2013Gudan3965 Revocation of Non-approval of Medical Care Benefits

○○ (Law No. 11, 1969)

Chang-si, Soyang-ro 51-ro 20

Law Firm (Bae, Kim & Lee LLC, Attorneys Shin Jong-chul and Kim Jong-seok, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Representative Lee Jae-chul

Supporting the litigation performer;

February 20, 2014

March 6, 2014

1. On July 13, 2012, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s disposition of refusal to grant medical care.

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

The order is as set forth in the text.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff, a civil engineering department head of Hanwon Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Japan Construction"), was engaged in the field management of the Jinsung-gun ecological river development project in Gangwon-do, Jinsung-gun, Jinseong-gun, 732. On November 25, 201, at around 20, the plaintiff asserted that five national highways No. 1725, U.S., 5, U.S., U.K., U., U.S., U.S., 07 U.S., U.S., 1725, U.S., U.S., U.S., U.S. (hereinafter referred to as "the vehicle of this case"), who was driven in the course of driving, without discovering it, and filed an application for medical care benefits with the defendant on Feb. 31, 201, by suffering from the injury, such as dump, inter-Korean, and dumping the left.

B. On July 13, 2012, the Defendant: (a) notified the Plaintiff that the instant accident did not constitute an occupational accident because it was out of the scope of the business owner’s control and management due to the occurrence of the accident that occurred while leaving the Plaintiff’s vehicle; (b) on the ground that it did not constitute an occupational accident; (c) on the ground that the Plaintiff filed a petition for examination on the appeal, but (d) was dismissed on November 22, 2012.

【Uncontentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, and 6 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the body before oral argument

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Relevant statutes

Article 37 (1) 1 (c) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act provides that an accident that happens during commuting to and from work under the control and management of the business owner, such as using a means of transportation provided by the business owner and a similar means of transportation, shall be deemed an accident on duty, and Article 29 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act provides that an accident on duty shall be deemed an accident if an accident occurs while the business owner has used a means of transportation offered for commuting to and from work or a means of transportation deemed to have been provided by the business owner, and the management or the right to use a means of transportation

The term “occupational accident” under the above Act refers to an occupational accident caused by an employee’s performance of his/her duties or ordinary activities incidental thereto under the employer’s control and management under an employment contract with the employer. A worker’s commuting to and from work is closely and indivisible with the employee’s workplace, even if his/her commuting to and from work is reserved by the employee’s selection of the method and route of commuting to and from work, it cannot be deemed that the employee’s commuting to and from work is an occupational accident solely because the employee’s selection of the route is ordinary. On the other hand, if commuting to and from work is deemed to be under the employer’s control and management, the occupational accident may also occur during his/her commuting to and from work and may not be deemed as an occupational accident if the employee’s commuting to and from work is not closely related to the employee’s commuting to and from work (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 204Du121, Apr. 23, 2004).

(b) Facts of recognition;

In addition to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 7 through 12, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 9, the following facts are recognized.

(1) On May 1, 2010, the Plaintiff entered the construction site management company as a person in charge of managing the construction site, and performed the design, survey, equipment work instructions, customer visits, settlement, and other work progress of the construction site. The construction site at the above construction site is required to use a vehicle in order to manage the site by means of an office, construction site, and transaction site visits, etc. The construction site at the construction site at the construction site at the construction site is more than two kilometers, or there was only one vehicle for business purposes such as work and transportation of materials, although four employees, including the Plaintiff, work site at the construction site, were employed by the head of the Working Group, and the head of the Working Group used it. The remaining workers, including the Plaintiff, used the vehicle owned by an individual.

(2) The plaintiff, while conducting on-site management work such as surveying and visiting customers, etc. with the instant vehicle: 8: 00 work hours and 18:00 work hours, and 18:00 work hours. At his address, the plaintiff used the national highway No. 5 km-2 km of the national highway No. 15. 2 km of the National Highway No. 15. - The distance between South Won-do and the national highway No. 5 is shorter and there is no tolls. The location where the instant disaster occurred is located on the national highway No. 5 km at a distance of 8.2 km from the construction site to the public transportation at the site of the plaintiff and the construction site. On the other hand, there are multiple buses that require inside and outside of 60 minutes for transportation due to means of public transportation between the plaintiff's domicile and the construction site.

(3) The Plaintiff regularly managed and used the instant vehicle including weekends and holidays, and paid the insurance premium related to the instant vehicle, and in the daily following construction, instead of providing employees with a vehicle for commuting to and from work, the Plaintiff subsidized expenses, such as oil and engine exchange expenses, vehicle repair expenses, etc. necessary for the instant vehicle in the manner of collective settlement with business partners, such as oil stations, instead of paying employees a vehicle for commuting to and from work.

C. Determination

In light of the following circumstances based on the recognition of the facts as seen earlier, i.e., (i) the Plaintiff did not provide the Plaintiff with a vehicle for commuting, and (ii) the Plaintiff’s personal vehicle, other than the instant vehicle for business purposes, was premised on the Plaintiff’s personal vehicle for commuting to and from the construction site, and the Plaintiff did not have been unable to commute to and from the workplace by using the bus or taxi, etc., it appears that the transit route, required hours, and expenses would have to bear a significant physical labor and daily burden; and (iii) it is difficult to expect the Plaintiff to choose a method of commuting to and from the workplace other than the instant vehicle for his own driving by social norms, in view of the inevitable operation of his personal vehicle while it was inevitable to perform his duties, such as construction site management, etc., (i) it appears that the Plaintiff had been aware that his personal vehicle for business purposes, other than the instant vehicle was under the premise of being used for the on-site work, and (ii) it appears that the Plaintiff was in a close relation with the Plaintiff’s commuting to and from the workplace.

Thus, it is reasonable to see that the instant accident occurred due to occupational reasons under the control and management of the construction of the Ilkk Construction, which is the business owner. The instant disposition of this case on other arguments is deemed unlawful and revoked.

The plaintiff's claim shall be accepted with due reason.

Judges Noh Jeong-Gyeong