206Guhap7249 Revocation of Disposition of Non-approval for Medical Care

00

000 Governing Authority

March 15, 2006

March 29, 2006

1. The defendant revoked on June 21, 2004 the disposition of non-approval for medical care granted 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 January 8, 2004, the plaintiff, who works as an employee of the office of the 000 church, was on board the church 000,000,000,000 on a multi-party car owned by the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the "vehicle of this case"), and arrived at the church 5:00,000 new walls, and when the plaintiff rapidly arrived at the above 3 new car of this case after the plaintiff was immediately lowered, the vehicle of this case was parked and parked after the above 3 new car of this case in order to establish it, "after the accident of this case, after the plaintiff was faced with the accident of this case, the vehicle of this case was cut off with the string, the string part, the 2000 church of this case, and the 200,000 church of this case,

B. On June 21, 2004, the Defendant was working as the head of the church, but the injury of this case was not a disaster that occurred while carrying out accounting and administrative affairs, which are the duties of the Plaintiff, but a disaster that occurred while attending or holding concurrent offices in a private religious event, and thus, it cannot be deemed as a free disaster for business purposes.

[Grounds for recognition] Each of Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3, and 4-1, 2, Gap 8, 13-16, Eul evidence 9, Gap evidence 12-6, and Eul evidence 10

2. Whether the disposition is lawful; and

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the act of transporting church believerss to churches by using the instant vehicle belongs to the plaintiff's business who is not attending the church's office, the instant church's disease constitutes an occupational accident.

(b) Facts of recognition;

(1) The plaintiff was a new 000 church, but the full-time officer who was in the church administration affairs has been employed as the head of the 000 church conference on December 1, 1996 at sight, and has been in charge of accounting such as bank affairs, government offices' affairs, book keeping, computerized entry, document keeping operations, etc., and church's large and small affairs other than administrative affairs.

(2) According to the case, the Plaintiff directly driven the instant vehicle and transported the believers to attend a wedding ceremony and to attend a wedding ceremony. As such, the Plaintiff purchased the instant vehicle on April 2003 under the condition that the Plaintiff would receive the vehicle maintenance cost from the church by carrying out the instant vehicle. The Plaintiff transported the believers and believers who participated in the instant meeting, such as the special wall gate, the teaching ceremony, the funeral ceremony, and the church assembly.

(3) At the 000 church, the new wall time was located at the king king, and there was no means of public transportation at all during the new wall time, and the village bus at the 30 minutes per week was operated at a low time, and in particular, since one village bus was operated at one hour per week and it was difficult to transport public transportation, new islands, which do not have any private use, used 45 passenger buses provided by a church. If there is a new bus, the plaintiff, the office manager, transported the new bus to a church using the instant vehicle.

(4) The event, such as the New Fence Roster, is a prior review of the matters necessary for the proceeding of the event by opening a joint meeting by the trade parties and all employees. As a result of the discussion on the issue of shipping the new Fence Roster in 2004 and gathering by the trade parties and employees, it decided to share the transportation of the Plaintiff and all trade parties, and the Plaintiff was assigned to transport the new letters residing in the area of four times that they live.

(5) On January 3, 2004, 000, the company ordered employees, including the Plaintiff, and its traders to engage in the work from 4:00 to 1.9:00 in order to transport the members of the special wall flag that is going from 5 days to 5:00 on January 5, 2004.

(6) The Plaintiff’s working hours are 09:0 to 17:00 on a regular basis, but in the case of a church’s new wall special painting or funeral ceremony, the Plaintiff needs to work at the UN new wall, etc., regardless of the ordinary working hours, and the time for the Plaintiff’s commuting to and from work was not fixed.

(7) The Plaintiff, from September 2003, was required to concurrently hold the office of Jeondogs, but it did not pass at the time of the Nogdogs accident, but was called as a full-time official for convenience, and received an employee honorarium paid to an employee who is not a member of the trade party who is not a member of the trade party who is paid to a sexual member such as a church pastor, because he was not a sexual member. Furthermore, the 000 church members appointed a full-time physician within the church itself for pure religious activities among the usual letter, and the Jeondogs shall perform the management of Shin and encourage the participation of the church.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap evidence 5-1 to 4, Gap evidence 7, 9, 10, Eul evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 6-1 to 6-4, Eul evidence 7 and 8, Eul evidence 7 and 8, testimony of witness Kim-ok, the purport of the whole argument

C. Determination

Whether an employee in a place of business, such as a church, is an employee of a church who conducts religious activities for private purposes as well as a church's work, whether the employee's act constitutes a church's work or a pure religious activity, must be determined by comprehensively considering whether the act was conducted under the employer's explicit or implied instruction or approval, whether the main purpose of the act was to carry out the church's work or to carry out the religious activities according to the individual's faith, whether the act was to carry out the church's work or whether the main purpose of the act constitutes the church's work or the religious activities. According to the above facts, the act of transporting believerss to a church for the convenience of believers was done as a part of the church's ordinary work, and since it was difficult for the plaintiff to take measures to transport the buses to a new church, it constitutes an act of transporting the plaintiff's work to a new church under the direction of the plaintiff to transport the new church's work to the new church, and thus, the plaintiff's act cannot be seen as an act of bringing the plaintiff to the new church's work.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is accepted on the ground of the reasons.

Judges Park Sang-hoon

Hadon Line

Stambling wells