[1] The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that there was a violation of the rules of evidence and incomplete hearing in finding facts about the occurrence of disaster

[2] The case holding that an accident that occurred during the preparation of a work tool moving to a construction site constitutes an occupational accident under Article 3 (1) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

[1] The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that the court below's fact-finding is incomplete and there is a violation of the rules of evidence

[2] The case holding that a disaster that occurred while a subcontractor for a construction work of a new building was relocated to a construction site to prepare for work from the next day at night before the commencement date of the subcontract constitutes an occupational accident under Article 3 (1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, as a preparatory act for work incidental to the performance of the work

Plaintiff (Attorney Lee In-bok et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 95Gu26652 delivered on May 14, 1996

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the non-party 1 did not know of the above new construction site of the building on September 7, 1994 and tried to move work tools to the construction site of Seocho-gu Seoul ( Address omitted) residential facilities and the new construction site of the building (hereinafter referred to as the "new construction site"), which was located outside of the building site of this case after completing the work at the construction site of the building of this case. The non-party 1 did not know of the above new construction site of the building of this case. The non-party 1 tried to move to the construction site of the building of this case to the construction site of the building of this case after the construction site of the building of this case. The non-party 1, who was employed by the non-party 2 at the above construction site of the building of this case, to the construction site of this case to the non-party 1's new construction site of this case and to the construction site of this case to the non-party 1's new construction site of this case. The above non-party 1 had no choice but to the construction site of this case.

2. However, even though the above non-party 1 did not intend to employ the deceased at the construction site of the building of this case, he did not have the intent to start up to his house in the YY, it is difficult for the court below to find it difficult to understand that the above deceased was accompanied by his own accompanying and had been in accordance with the construction site of the building of this case.

According to the evidence adopted by the court below for the above fact-finding, the above non-party 1 was to newly construct the above non-party 6 evidence No. 7 (the above non-party 1's statement statement) and to the non-party 1's new construction of the above new building No. 5 (the non-party 1's new building No. 5's new construction of the above new building No. 994, Sep. 7, 1994, which was immediately after the accident of this case, the non-party 1's new construction of the new building No. 1's new construction of the building No. 3 and the non-party 2's new construction of the above new building No. 9's new construction of the above new building No. 1's new construction of the building No. 999, and the non-party 1's new construction of the above new building No. 3's new construction of the building No. 1's new construction of the above new building No. 999's new construction of the building No.

Therefore, the court below held that the above deceased's bodily harm was included in the work site of the construction site of the building of this case at the construction site of the building of this case, whether the above deceased's bodily harm was caused by the above deceased's bodily harm, whether the above deceased's bodily harm was done at the construction site of the building of this case, and whether the above deceased's bodily harm was done at the construction site of the building of this case after his arrival at the construction site of the building of this case, and the above non-party 1's bodily harm was done at his house after the accident of this case. While the above non-party 1 stated that the above deceased's bodily harm was done at the construction site of the building of this case at the construction site of the building of this case at his own discretion, although he instructed the above deceased's not to work at the construction site of this case at the construction site of the new building of this case, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the facts as seen above, and it did not err in the misapprehension of the facts of the facts of the above construction site of this case.

On the other hand, as determined by the court below, the above non-party 3 was awarded a contract with the non-party 4, the owner of the building of this case for the provision of labor for the interior works of this case (unclaimed construction, drawing, painting, and setting up entrances) from the non-party 4, who is the owner of the building of this case, and ordered the above non-party 1 to leave the unclaimed construction work of this case to the above non-party 1 and to work from September 8 of the same year. Thus, if the circumstances leading to the accident of this case to the new construction site of this case are located at the site of the building of this case, the above non-party 3 was the owner of the building of this case, and the above non-party 1, who is subordinate to the above non-party 3, decided to be constructed from September 8, 194 to prepare for the new construction work of the building of this case, the above non-party 1's act of using the above new construction site of this case can be viewed as an unlawful act of construction of this case's.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)