The method of determining whether there is a proximate causal relationship between an occupational accident and an excessive accident in the event that an injury, disease or disability occurs or dies as the main cause for an employee to drink in excess of his/her drinking volume in the form of a briefing session controlled or managed by the business owner.

In the case where an employee’s drinking in excess of his/her drinking volume mainly causes the injury, disease, or disability or dies, and where proximate causal relation is recognized between the accident, it constitutes occupational accidents under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act: Provided, That in this context, whether proximate causal relation exists between the accident shall be determined with careful consideration of various circumstances, such as duties and food, whether the employer has recommended the employee to drink, or has de facto forced the employee to drink, or whether the drinking was conducted voluntarily by his/her own judgment and intent, the amount of drinking alcohol to other workers than the worker affected by the accident, the degree of the volume of drinking alcohol, whether the disaster is within the scope of ordinary risks associated with his/her duties, whether the disaster is within the scope of ordinary risks associated with his/her duties, and whether it is not a disaster that occurred through other abnormal routes unrelated to the mental or physical disorder caused by the ceremony or excess

Article 5(1) and Article 37(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

Plaintiff (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Seo-won et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 2013Nu19853 decided November 7, 2013

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In cases where a worker suffers from an occupational accident while participating in an event or a meeting other than a company that is not provided for as an ordinary duty under an employment contract, the overall process of the event or meeting must be in the state of being controlled or managed by the business owner in light of the circumstances such as the organizer, purpose, content, number of participants, the method of operation, the burden of expenses, etc. of the event or meeting, and the worker must not deviate from such an event or meeting’s net course (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du6717, Nov. 15, 2007). In addition, in the form of a meeting controlled or managed by the business owner, the worker’s drinking exceeding his/her share of alcohol was mainly caused by the injury, disease, or disability, and if proximate causal relation is acknowledged between the above, it can be deemed that it constitutes an occupational accident as provided for in the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, unless he/she is forced to undergo an abnormal causal relation with the worker’s mental and physical disability or drinking, etc., other than the worker’s own mental and physical accident.

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the Plaintiff was a counselor belonging to the ASEAN Team of Nonparty Company (IBR) from July 18:20, 201 to 21:15 of the same day, with 30 employees, including Nonparty 1, the head of the ABR team, who was in charge of the ABR team at a restaurant, for the first ceremony of the ABR team. On the same day, at around 21:43 of the same day, the Plaintiff transferred the 12 staff, including Nonparty 1, to the 4th floor of the next building. ② The Plaintiff opened an emergency exit door on the same floor as the 2nd class to find the above KBR team, and the Plaintiff did not take the 1st floor of the Plaintiff’s body, including Nonparty 1, who was in charge of the ABR team, and did not take the 1string of the Plaintiff’s body, and did not take the 1string of the Plaintiff’s body.

Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, even if the Plaintiff’s mode of action was held by the employer’s side, the Plaintiff was in excess of the drinking volume of other persons, including Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2, due to voluntary intent, even though the Plaintiff did not force the employer, and was in excess of the drinking volume of those of other persons, including Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2, and it became the main cause, and it was difficult to deem that there was a proximate causal relation between the business and the Plaintiff’s accident.

Nevertheless, solely for the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that the injury suffered by the Plaintiff constitutes occupational accidents. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on occupational accidents as prescribed by the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation in the grounds of appeal

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim So-young (Presiding Justice)