[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] The case recognizing occupational accidents on the ground that the method and selection of the route cannot be deemed as actually reserved to the Deceased, and that the work process was controlled and managed by the business owner, in case where a certified auctioneer who should attend the work during the work hours without any means of public transportation, such as bus, etc., died during his/her private use

[1] Article 4 subparagraph 1 (see current Article 5 subparagraph 1) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 8373 of 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 of Apr. 11, 2007)

[1] Supreme Court en banc Decision 2005Du4458 Decided September 29, 2005 (Gong2005Ha, 1698) Supreme Court en banc Decision 2005Du12572 Decided September 28, 2007 (Gong2007Ha, 1685) Supreme Court Decision 2007Du6991 Decided October 26, 2007

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

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 2005Nu13324 delivered on December 29, 2005

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The term “occupational accident” under Article 4 subparag. 1 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 8373 of Apr. 11, 2007; hereinafter “Industrial Accident Insurance Act”) means an accident caused by an employee’s performance of his/her duties or his/her ordinary activities under the control and management of the employer, based on an employment contract between the employee and the employer. However, even if the employee’s departure and retirement are closely and partly related to the business of providing his/her labor, it cannot be said that the employee is under the control and management of the ordinary employer because the choice of the means of departure and retirement is generally reserved in terms of the method of departure and retirement and the route. Unless there are special provisions that recognize an accident that occurred during his/her departure and retirement by normal methods and route, it cannot be said that the employee is under the control and management of the employee’s share of 200 or 50. 25.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below is justified to determine the accident of this case as an occupational accident under the Industrial Accident Insurance Act on the ground that it is reasonable to see that the method of departure and retirement and the selection of the route was not actually reserved to the deceased, and that the work process of the deceased was under the control and management of the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation, the business owner, based on the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of the judgment of the court of first instance, based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to occupational accident under the Industrial Accident Insurance Act, as alleged in the ground of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the 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 Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)