[1] Standard for determining whether an occupational accident under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act exists in a case where an employee was suffering from an accident while attending an event or meeting outside of the company, / Whether it can be deemed as an occupational accident in a case where an employee was suffering from an accident such as injury, disease, physical disability, death, etc. as the main cause for the employee’s drinking in excess of his/her prime quantity during the revolving process under the control or management of the employer (affirmative with qualification), and the method for determining whether there is a

[2] In a case where Eul, the team leader of the safety management team of the newly constructed apartment construction operated by the construction company Gap, attended a wooden-up show held by the construction company Gap and died after getting off the crosswalk while returning home by means of public transportation, such as usual, the case holding that the judgment below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, even though there is room to regard the above accident as an occupational accident that occurred in the course of being controlled and managed by the business owner, in light of all the circumstances

[1] In a case where a worker suffers from a disaster while participating in an event or meeting outside of a company, considering the circumstances such as the organizer, purpose, contents, number of participants and forced participation, methods of operation, burden of expenses, etc. of the event or meeting, if it is recognized that the overall process of the event or meeting is in a state of being controlled or managed by the employer under social norms, and that the worker is in a state of not getting out of the net course of such event or meeting, it can be viewed as an occupational accident under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

In a case where an employee under the control or management of an employer consumes alcohol in excess of his/her liquor and suffers from an injury, disease, physical disability, death, etc., such disaster may be deemed an occupational accident insofar as proximate causal relation is recognized. In such a case, proximate causal relation shall be determined by taking into account various circumstances, such as whether the employee himself/herself and voluntarily conducted an excessive act despite the employer’s restraint or restraint of such act, and whether the accident occurred within the scope of risks ordinarily associated with the process of a meeting related to his/her duties, or whether the accident occurred through another abnormal route irrelevant to the mental and physical disorder caused by excessive noise, etc.

[2] In a case where Eul, the team leader of the safety management team of the newly constructed apartment construction operated by the construction company Gap, attended a wooden-up show held by the construction company Gap, and died after getting home by means of public transportation, such as usual, the case holding that the judgment below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, in light of all the circumstances, since Eul was an important event of the construction company Gap, which is the business owner Gap, and went home by drinking alcohol in the ceremony prepared by the business owner on the same day, while drinking alcohol in the ceremony prepared by the construction company Gap, there is room to regard the above accident as an occupational accident that occurred while he was under the control and management of the business owner, even though there is room to regard it as an occupational accident.

[1] Article 5 subparag. 1 and Article 37(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act / [2] Article 5 subparag. 1, Article 37(1), Article 62, and Article 71 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2007Du6717 Decided November 15, 2007, Supreme Court Decision 2008Du9812 Decided October 9, 2008, Supreme Court Decision 2013Du25276 Decided November 12, 2015 (Gong2015Ha, 1897), Supreme Court Decision 2016Du54589 Decided May 30, 2017 (Gong2017Ha, 1389)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Lee & Lee, Attorneys Kim Shin-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 2017Nu42004 decided January 10, 2018

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In a case where a worker suffers from a disaster while participating in an event or a meeting outside of the company, considering the circumstances such as the organizer, purpose, contents, number of participants, forcedness, methods of operation, burden of expenses, etc. of the event or meeting, where social norms recognize that the overall process of the event or meeting is in the state of being controlled or managed by the employer, and the worker is in the state of not getting out of the net course of the event or meeting, it constitutes occupational accident under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du6717, Nov. 15, 2007, etc.).

In a case where an employee under the control or management of an employer consumes alcohol in excess of his/her liquor due to an injury, disease, physical disability, death, etc., such an accident may be deemed an occupational accident insofar as proximate causal relation is recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Du9812, Oct. 9, 2008; 2013Du25276, Nov. 12, 2015). In such cases, proximate causal relation should be determined by considering various circumstances, such as whether the employee himself/herself and voluntarily conducted an excessive act even though the employer met or prevented the excessive act, whether the accident occurred within the scope of risks ordinarily connected to the business, or whether the accident occurred within the scope of risks ordinarily connected to the business, or whether the accident occurred through another abnormal route unrelated to the mental and physical disorder due to excessive noise, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2013Du25276, Apr. 5, 2017).

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the following circumstances are revealed.

A. On April 14, 2016, during the process of the construction of an apartment (name omitted) (hereinafter “instant construction”), Hoba Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Hoba Construction”) held the instant show on April 14, 2016. This was an important event that predicts the stability and degree of completion of the building to be completed in advance and sets the direction and strategies for the future construction process by predicting the completion of the construction process, by setting a household upon completion of a part of the instant construction project, including the interior construction work, and completing the completion of the construction, including the representative of the headquarters, the head of the technical division, the head of the competent department, and the head of the team.

B. Nonparty 1, the husband of the Plaintiff, as the team leader of the safety management team of the instant construction project, established a general safety management plan for the instant show, managed whether to implement the plan, and continuously prepared the instant show on March 2016.

C. The instant show was carried out from 8:00 p.m. to 1:0 p.m. on the day of the instant accident, and cultural events held on the same day from 6:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. for the first half-time period of Hocom Construction were carried out in a bowling place. The instant first round ceremony was carried out in a restaurant from 7:30 p.m. to 9:0 p.m., and the instant second round ceremony was carried out in an entertainment drinking room from 9:20 p.m. to 10:50 p.m.

D. At the first ceremony of this case, 23 field employees of the instant construction were present, and at the second ceremony of this case, 9 persons, including Nonparty 2 of the construction division, Nonparty 3 of the construction division, and Nonparty 1 in charge of safety management of the instant show, including 5 safety management teams, who are in charge of safety management of the instant show. Nonparty 1 performed drinking in the first ceremony of this case and the second ceremony of this case. Nonparty 1 paid all the expenses of the first and second round ceremony of this case with the corporate card of Hocom Construction.

E. Nonparty 1 was commuting to and from work by means of his own vehicle or public transportation, and Hoban Construction recommended to move by means of public transportation when a company exercises overall events, such as the instant show. When Nonparty 1 used public transportation, Nonparty 1 ordinarily taken a steel in the ○○ Line △△△△△ Station and taken off from the △△△ Station, and returned to the bus stop by using a bus stop for about five minutes. Nonparty 1 got home by using public transportation as a usual bus after having finished the second round of the instant bus. Nonparty 1 got off at the ○○ Line △△△△△△ Station and getting off at the △△△ Station around 23:35, the instant accident occurred when Nonparty 1 was faced with a vehicle at the crosswalk of the 11-line bus stop while travelling to the bus stop.

3. Examining these circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, as the instant accident occurred while Nonparty 1 completed the instant competitive show, which was an important event of Hoban Construction, the business owner of which was in general in charge of safety management, and drinking alcohol at the ceremony prepared by the business owner on the same day, there is room to regard the instant accident as an occupational accident that occurred under the control and management of the business owner.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that it was difficult to recognize the instant accident as an occupational accident. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on occupational accidents, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation contained

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Dong-won (Presiding Justice)