[1] Whether an occupational accident under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act may be deemed to be an occupational accident in a case where a worker suffers from an injury, death, etc., as his/her main cause is that the worker was in a state of having a normal trouble or ability to make a judgment due to excessive conduct in the course of a revolving the employer’s control and management (affirmative

[2] The case holding that in case where a worker who attended a staff meeting with Binerer and reached a state of excessive exploitation was suffering from an injury such as serious cerebral cerebral ties, etc. due to his/her head differently from the subway platform while returning home, the case holding that an occupational accident constitutes an occupational accident as long as an accident occurred as the wind that takes the place in the ceremony under the overall control and management of the business owner's business owner's accident occurred

[1] Article 5 subparagraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act / [2] Article 5 subparagraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Attorney Kim Young-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 2007Nu30941 decided May 29, 2008

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The court below, citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, took part in the accident of this case which affected the plaintiff's wind from May 25, 2006 to 20: 18:20 to 20:32; the non-party 1, who is the owner of the business of this case, and the plaintiff, the non-party 2, and the non-party 3, who is the non-party 4 and its employees, who are the non-party 5 and the non-party 6, who are operating the business of this case, in the same place of business as the non-party 1's accident of this case; the non-party 4 and the non-party 4, who are the owner of the non-party 1 and the non-party 5 and the non-party 6, were employed at the first restaurant of China, and the other members of this case did not take part in the non-party 4's daily accident of this case, and continued to take part in the non-party 2's daily accident of this case.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, it is justifiable that the court below determined that both the above 1 and 2 forms were actually conducted under the control and management of the Plaintiff’s business owner, based on the circumstances in its reasoning, when the light industry of Nonparty 1’s operation and the operation of Nonparty 4 is substantially identical.

The argument disputing this point among the grounds of appeal is merely disputing a legitimate fact-finding by the lower court, which is a fact-finding court, and it does not constitute a legitimate ground of appeal.

Meanwhile, in cases where an employee was involved in an event or a meeting other than a company that is not ordinarily obligated to engage in an employment contract and caused an occupational accident, the overall process of the event or meeting must be in the state of being controlled or managed by the employer in light of circumstances such as the organizer, purpose, content, number of participants, forcedness, methods of operation, burden of expenses, etc. of the event or meeting, and the worker must not deviate from such event or meeting’s net course (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Nu7271, Aug. 29, 1997; 2007Du6717, Nov. 15, 2007; 2007Du6717, Nov. 15, 2007). Furthermore, in cases where the employee was suffering from an occupational accident due to an occupational accident, such as mental or physical disorder or disability caused by drinking exceeding his/her normal driving or judgment ability, or where the employee was suffering from such an occupational accident or mental disability due to his/her own mental or physical disorder.

In the same purport, the judgment of the court below that the plaintiff's injury or disease caused by the accident of this case constitutes an occupational accident is just, and the ground of appeal disputing this point is without merit.

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 Cha Han-sung (Presiding Justice)