2006Guhap7058 Revocation of Disposition of Non-approval for Medical Care for Public Duties

00

Public Official Pension Corporation

May 24, 2006

June 14, 2006

1. On June 28, 2005, the Defendant revoked the disposition of non-approval of medical care for official duties rendered to the Plaintiff.

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. On August 18, 2004, the Plaintiff was injured by a traffic accident at the intersection in front of the downstream 1 complex, YY-dong, Hacheon-si, Hacheon-si, Hacheon-si, and the two parts of the disease. (hereinafter “the disease of this case”). The Plaintiff was injured by a traffic accident at the intersection in front of the downstream 1 complex, Hacheon-si, Hacheon-si, Hacheon-si, Hacheon-si. (hereinafter “the disease of this case”).

B. On December 23, 2005, the Plaintiff filed an application for approval of medical care for official duties on the ground that the instant injury was caused by a traffic accident that occurred during the period of his/her usual retirement route to the Defendant, and thus, the Plaintiff applied for approval of medical care for official duties. However, on June 28, 2005, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-approval of the Plaintiff’s application for approval of medical care for official duties on the ground that the injury caused by a traffic accident during his/her retirement was a traffic accident during his/her normal and reasonable path and method to his/her own home in order to be recognized as an occupational accident during his/her retirement. In the Plaintiff’s case of his/her workplace, the traffic accident going beyond the normal course of his/her commuting to his/her workplace and his/her house in his/her house in order to carry out his/her funeral service, and thus, the proximate causal relation between the occupational branch of the instant case cannot be acknowledged.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the injury and disease of this case was brought to a traffic accident while they were retired according to the usual route and method, it constitutes an accident on official duties. Even if the plaintiff was retired for a private purpose, it should be determined on the basis of an external and objective act. The traffic accident of this case occurred in the course of normal departure, and thus constitutes an accident on official duties. Since the plaintiff was a full-time officer of the Trade Union at the time of the accident, he was present at a meeting related to the trade union activity of this case, and even if considering the purpose of the internal deliberation, the defendant's disposition of this case which did not recognize a proximate causal relation between official duties of this case is unlawful.

(b) Relevant statutes;

【Public Officials Pension Act】

Article 35 (Expenses of Medical Care in the line of duty) (1) Where a public official provides the following medical care due to a disease or injury caused by official duty, the expenses of medical care shall be paid

1. Diagnosis.

2. Delivery of medicinal things, remedial things, and prosthetic devices;

3. Treatment, operation and other treatment;

4. Accommodation in a hospital or sanatorium;

5. Nursing;

6. Transfer.

[Enforcement Rules of the Public Officials Pension Act]

Article 14 (Bodily Injury, Death, etc. Resulting from Accidents During Withdrawal or Elimination) Where a public official is injured or killed due to a traffic accident that happens in forest land, the fall accident that happens in the course of leaving or leaving a forest, or any other accident that occurs in the course of leaving or leaving a forest by normal route and method, such public official shall be deemed injured or killed on duty.

(c) Facts of recognition;

(1) On October 4, 1994, the Plaintiff joined the office of 000 office of the Korea Railroad Workers' Office, and currently worked as the 000 driver's office, and from March 29, 2004, the Plaintiff is working as the 000 branch office of the Korea Railroad Workers' Union 000 branch office from March 29, 2004, and the 000 branch office was working as the Plaintiff's workplace rent from May 17, 2004 to November 18, 2004.

(2) From December 4, 2003, the Plaintiff resided in Seocheon-si 00 00 000 0000 0000 0000 - on the resident registration, but the resident registration address was located in Seocheon-dong 000 - from July 7, 2003 to December 5, 2005 when the Plaintiff’s parent resides in the Plaintiff’s parents. On December 6, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a move-in report with the domicile of the above apartment on December 11, 1996, and from December 11, 199, the Plaintiff resided in the above 00 dong - 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - which is located in the above 00 dong - which is located in the Plaintiff’s residential area.

(3) When the plaintiff normally goes to work, he shall go to the office of 000 which is working at the workplace, and when he retires to the office, he shall go to the office of 25 minutes to the office of 000. When he goes to the office, he shall go to the office of Do, and he shall go to the office of Do, and he shall go to the office of 25 minutes to the Do.

(4) On August 18, 2004: Around 10, the Plaintiff got out of the office of the branch office of the National Railroad Workers' Union of 000, Chungcheongbuk 00Na000, which was driven by the branch office of the branch office of the National Railroad Workers' Union, due to the collision of a car of 000 driving cars with the vehicle of 000 driving, which was driven by the 000 driver (the traffic accident of this case) which was driven by the 000 driver, which was driven by the 00 driver at the intersection of 000 Hacheon-dong, Hacheon-dong, Hacheon-dong, 100 apartment, which was driven by the 00 driver to turn to the left.

(5) At the time of the instant traffic accident, Plaintiff 00 and 000 were in the middle of a road that was ordinarily used by Plaintiff 000 apartment crossings, which are the place where the instant traffic accident occurred, and the 00 apartment crossings are located in the vicinity of an apartment where 000 apartments, which are the place where the instant traffic accident occurred, are located. The 00 cafeterias are located in the vicinity of an apartment where the 000 apartments, which are the place where the instant traffic accident occurred, are located.

[Based on recognition] Evidence No. 2-1 to 3, evidence No. 3, evidence No. 4, evidence No. 5-1 to 4, evidence No. 6, evidence No. 13-1, 2, evidence No. 15, evidence No. 17-1, 2, evidence No. 4, evidence No. 7, evidence No. 7, and evidence No. 8

D. Determination

(1) Medical care expenses under Article 35(1) of the Public Officials Pension Act are paid when a public official needs medical care due to a disease or injury caused by a public official’s official duty. In such an accident on official duty, it includes a disaster that occurs while entering or leaving the place of work by normal route and method, but it does not constitute an ordinary route and method, or a disaster that occurs after leaving or leaving the normal route does not constitute an accident on official duty.

The term "ordinary route and method" means a route and method generally recognized as being used in light of the circumstances of transportation in the region when they come to and go from the workplace or a place of work. Among them, "ordinary route" means a reasonable route in consideration of various traffic circumstances, such as the time and distance, and it is necessary to have a consistent specificity to a certain extent. However, the sole means that it is included in multiple routes with alternative social norms, and it does not necessarily mean the shortest course. In addition, it does not mean that it deviates from the ordinary route regardless of the purpose of going to and from work or commuting to the workplace. It can be viewed as "on the part of going to the normal route", "on the part of going to the normal route, which is not related to work or commuting to the workplace," and "on the part of the normal route, it is difficult to recognize not only the act of leaving the workplace but also the act of protecting the situation of leaving the workplace in the middle of commuting to the workplace.

(2) According to the above facts, it is evident that the Plaintiff suffered from an accident during the instant traffic accident while leaving the workplace and ultimately going to the workplace. Here, not only the case of going to the workplace but also the case of going to the restaurant and then going to the last place of residence, it does not have any obstacle to recognizing the Plaintiff’s commuting activity as a commuting activity. The issue is whether the Plaintiff’s commuting activity at the time of the instant traffic accident is a usual route and method that is protecting the Plaintiff’s commuting activity as a commuting accident. First, the Plaintiff’s commuting to the said car belongs to the ordinary way used in the ordinary workplace, and is placed on the normal route in the instant accident site. However, at the time of the instant traffic accident, the issue of the instant case is how to evaluate the Plaintiff’s commuting activity as a restaurant in order to do so.

This is a matter of whether the Plaintiff’s act of commuting prior to the withdrawal or the interruption of commuting from the ordinary route falls under a case where the Plaintiff does not recognize a disaster due to official duties by leaving his office or suspending commuting. In this case, the Plaintiff’s act of commuting prior to the withdrawal or the interruption of commuting shall be deemed to be a commuting accident. Although the Plaintiff was on the part of a three-party restaurant located at the office of the workplace of 000 and 000, the traffic accident in this case was ordinarily going to go out of the place where the traffic accident in this case occurred, the traffic accident in this case was an accident that occurred prior to leaving the normal route, and the traffic accident in this case was an accident that occurred before leaving the normal route. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s office was not only at the office of 000, but also at the office of the Plaintiff’s office, the traffic accident in this case was unlawful, even though it was an accident in this case during the absence of normal route and method.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable and accepted.

Judges Park Sang-hoon

Judges Dok-Jon Line

Judges Park Yong-woo