[1] In a case where the pertinent business is prohibited under the related Acts and subordinate statutes and criminal punishment is imposed when violating the prohibition provisions, whether it can be deemed as business under Article 6 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act applicable to the industrial accident compensation insurance business (negative)

[2] The case holding that a disposition is lawful in a case where a game room employee died due to a fire that occurred in an illegal game room and the bereaved family claimed the payment of bereaved family's benefits and funeral expenses, but the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service dismissed the above claim on the ground that the game room cannot be deemed a business or

[1] In full view of the purpose, legislative purport, and basic ideology of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the manager of the industrial accident compensation insurance business under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the State subsidy for some expenses incurred in the industrial accident compensation insurance business, the establishment and extinguishment reason for insurance relationship under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the burden of insurance premiums, and the calculation method, etc. under the related Acts and subordinate statutes, as well as the contents and form of various provisions regarding the prohibition of business under Articles 1 and 6 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, etc., it cannot be deemed as the business under Article 6 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act applicable to the industrial accident compensation insurance business even

[2] In a case where the employee of a game room was dead due to a fire that occurred in an illegal game room, and the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service claimed the payment of survivors' benefits and funeral expenses, but the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service rejected the above claim on the grounds that the game room cannot be deemed a business or a place of business to which the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act applies, the case affirming the judgment of the court below holding that the above disposition is lawful on the grounds that the business owner provided the game room business without permission in violation of the provisions of the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry in violation of the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry and promoted speculation by providing ungrade game products while operating the game room business and promoting it through free gifts, and the game room customers were subject to criminal punishment.

[1] Article 6 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act / [2] Article 6 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

Plaintiff 1 and five others (Attorney Jeon full-time, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 2009Nu26090 decided March 31, 2010

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are also examined.

1. As to the plaintiff 1, 2, 3, and 4

Article 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “Industrial Accident Insurance Act”) provides that “The purpose of this Act is to compensate workers for occupational accidents by implementing the industrial accident compensation insurance business in a prompt and fair manner, to establish and operate insurance facilities necessary for facilitating the rehabilitation of workers suffering from occupational accidents and their return to society, and to contribute to the protection of workers by carrying out disaster prevention projects and other projects for promoting workers’ welfare,” and Article 6 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act provides that “this Act shall apply to all businesses or workplaces that employ workers (hereinafter “business”): Provided, That this Act shall not apply to any business prescribed by Presidential Decree, taking into account risk rates, scale, place, etc.” Accordingly, Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, delegated by the proviso to Article 6 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, provides for detailed details concerning the excluded business.

In full view of the purpose, legislative purport, and basic ideology of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act, the manager of the industrial accident compensation insurance business under the Industrial Accident Insurance Act (hereinafter “insurance business”), the State’s support for some expenses incurred in the insurance business, the grounds for establishment and extinguishment of the insurance relationship prescribed by the Act on the Collection of Insurance Premiums for Employment Insurance and Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance, and the details and form of various regulations regarding the burden of insurance premiums and the calculation method, etc., if the pertinent business is prohibited by the relevant statutes and criminal punishment is violated, it cannot be deemed as the business stipulated in Article 6 of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act applicable to the insurance business even if the prohibition

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance partially accepted by the court below, after compiling the adopted evidence, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in the judgment. In light of the fact that the non-party 1 et al. provided game products without a rating while operating the game room business without permission in violation of the provisions of the Game Industry Promotion Act, and encourage speculation through free gifts, etc. in the game room, and that customers engaged in money exchange business of free gifts obtained by the game room, and thereby criminal punishment was imposed, the non-party 1 et al. resumed et al. resumed the game room business of this case around December 25, 2007, which was controlled by the police around December 11, 207 at the previous game room, and resumed the game room business of this case, and took measures necessary for the purpose of conducting illegal game room business from the beginning. In particular, in light of the fact that the accident of death caused by the fire in the course of installing the steel lock system additionally in the existing bar entrance system to avoid control of the police, it cannot be deemed as stipulated in the Game Business Industrial Accident Insurance Act or workplace.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the lower court’s recognition and determination of such facts are justifiable. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the scope of application of Article 6 of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

2. As to the deceased non-party 2's taking-over of lawsuit and the plaintiff 6

The above plaintiffs did not submit a statement of grounds for appeal within the statutory period, and the petition of appeal does not include the grounds for appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are 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 Min Il-young (Presiding Justice)