1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. On April 18, 2018, the amount of bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 13, 2015, the network B (hereinafter referred to as “the network”) was an employee of D (hereinafter referred to as “instant company”) who is a collaborative company of C company, and went to and from work for a usual business owner. On January 13, 2015, the network B, as in the case of a usual day, went to and from work for the workplace. On January 15, 2015, the network B (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”) went to and from the crosswalk of the Fintersection without permission, was shocked on another vehicle located in the direction of a usual green signal from the area of the Asan Seaside on the same day at around 05:27 of the same day (hereinafter “instant accident”).

B. On April 18, 2018, the Plaintiff claimed the bereaved family’s benefits and funeral expenses as the wife of the Deceased, but the Defendant issued a disposition against the Plaintiff to refuse the payment of bereaved family’s benefits and funeral expenses (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “the deceased’s accident was not occurred while the business owner was using the work bus provided, but is an accident that occurred at the crosswalk in order to get out of the work bus, and the crosswalk, which is an accident site, does not affect the business owner’s right to control and manage, and it is difficult to deem that the deceased was under the control and management of the business owner at the time of the accident, and it is not recognized that the deceased was under the control and management of the business owner.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, 5, 6, Eul evidence 1 and 5, Eul evidence 7 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be deemed as having actually reserved the method of commuting to and from work and the selection of the route therefor. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion constitutes “accident that occurred during commuting to and from work under the control and management of the business owner” under Article 37(1)1(c) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 14993, Oct. 24, 2017; hereinafter the same).

The instant accident is related to the deceased’s occupational accident.