(a) Requirements for any occupational accident;

(b) The case holding that it does not constitute an occupational accident solely on the ground that he/she was involved in a traffic accident while he/she was aboard a taxi without standing a bus provided by the company;

A. Even if the worker’s commuting act is closely indivisible with the business of providing labor, it cannot be said that the method of commuting and the selection of the route is reserved to workers, and thus, it cannot be said that the worker’s commuting process is under the control and management of the business owner. Therefore, the worker’s commuting process, such as using the means of transportation provided by the business owner, or allowing the business owner to use the means of transportation corresponding thereto, should be viewed as being under the control and management of the business owner.

(b) The case holding that it does not constitute an occupational accident on the ground that the process of retirement cannot be deemed to be under the control and management of the business owner merely because he/she was involved in a traffic accident while he/she was aboard a taxi without putting a transit bus provided by the business owner.

Article 3(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 92Nu13073 delivered on January 19, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 745) 92Nu16805 delivered on May 11, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 1730) 93Nu5970 delivered on September 14, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 2813)

[Judgment of the court below]

The head of the Federal Labor Office

Daegu High Court Decision 93Gu1115 delivered on November 24, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

The term "occupational accidents" in Article 3 (1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to occupational accidents caused by the worker's performance of duties under the control and management of the employer under an employment contract with the employer and caused by the worker's performance of duties. Thus, even if the worker's commuting activity is closely indivisible with the business of providing labor, it cannot be said that the worker's commuting method and the choice of the route is reserved to the worker, and therefore, it cannot be said that the worker's commuting process is under the control and management of the employer, such as the worker's use of the means of transportation provided by the employer or the employer's use of the means of transportation corresponding thereto.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized the fact that the non-party, who is the plaintiff's son, left a taxi in order to complete his service and leave his office, was killed due to a traffic accident. The court below held that even if the non-party, who was working place, was involved in a traffic accident while leaving a taxi in Daegu, which is a residential place, without the winding of the bus provided by the non-party company as his working place, the non-party cannot be deemed to have been under the control and management of the business owner at the time of the accident. In light of the records and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and the legal principles mentioned above, the court below's fact-finding and judgment are just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles.

In order for the above non-party to leave a bus at the time, there was no other means of leaving a taxi in addition to the use of a taxi, and to board a taxi, the crosswalk, which is an accident place, must be cut off, or the circumstance of the lawsuit that the above accident place is a place less than 200 meters away from the place of work, cannot decide on the above conclusion. There is no reason to hold this argument.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)