[1] The meaning of "occupational accident" under Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and the requirements for recognizing an occupational accident that occurred during the worker's departure or withdrawal from office

[2] Whether it violates the principle of equality under the Constitution to distinguish the standards of occupational accidents from those of public officials and ordinary workers (negative)

[3] The case holding that it does not constitute an occupational accident on the ground that the process of retirement from the company's office after extended work under the direction of the company cannot be deemed to have been under the control and management of the employer

[1] Article 4 subparagraph 1 (see current Article 5 subparagraph 1) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 8373, Apr. 11, 2007) / [2] Article 4 subparagraph 1 (see current Article 5 subparagraph 1) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 8373, Apr. 11, 2007); Article 35 (4) of the Enforcement Rule of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act; Article 25 of the Public Officials Pension Act; Article 14 of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Officials Pension Act; Article 11 (1) of the Constitution / [3] Article 4 subparagraph 1 (see current Article 5 subparagraph 1) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 8373, Apr. 11, 2007)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 9Du9025 delivered on December 24, 1999 (Gong2000Sang, 325), Supreme Court Decision 2005Du4458 Delivered on September 29, 2005 (Gong2005Ha, 1698), Supreme Court en banc Decision 2005Du12572 Delivered on September 28, 2007 (Gong2007Ha, 1685) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Nu1523 Delivered on March 14, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 1638), Constitutional Court Decision 93Hun-Ma45 delivered on September 27, 1993 (Gong351)

Plaintiff (Attorney Choi Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Daegu High Court Decision 2006Nu1716 decided March 16, 2007

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 8373 of Apr. 11, 2007; hereinafter "Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act") refers to an accident caused by an occupational accident under the control and management of an employee and his/her employer in the course of performing his/her duties or performing ordinary activities incidental thereto, based on an employment contract between the employee and the employer. However, even though he/she has a close and poor relationship with the business of providing labor, it cannot be deemed that an employee is under the control and management of an ordinary employer because the choice of an employee is reserved in terms of the method and route of departure and retirement. Unless there are special provisions recognizing an accident that occurred during his/her departure and retirement by means of ordinary methods and route 50, 299, 209, 209, 309, 97, 40, 90, 90, 90, 90, 90, 209, 209.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below acknowledged the facts of the judgment based on the evidence duly adopted by the court below, and rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff was under the control and management of the non-party company, the business owner of the non-party company, even if the plaintiff was at the time of retirement after the non-party company's completion of overtime service and the plaintiff was at the time of the accident of this case, and there was no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the occupational accident as alleged in the ground of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Ill-sook (Presiding Justice)