Workbear재주넘는곰
한국어 Log in Sign up free
◉ Workbear case detail — 대법원 2007두6991 · https://workbear.kr/precedents/6230 · Viewed 2026-10-27
대법원 2007두6991

Revocation of Disapproval of Medical Care Benefits (요양불승인처분취소)요양불승인처분취소

Decided2007. 10. 26. Court대법원Employer (and workers' compensation insurer) won; the worker's compensation claim was denied
한국어·Print
AI-generated English translation (summary, key points, decision summary and full text) for reference only — not an official translation and without legal effect. The Korean original below is authoritative.
AI Easy read — AI summary of this decision
AI-generated summary for reference only — the Korean original below is authoritative.

A worker worked overtime under the employer's instructions and was injured in an accident while commuting home on his own motorcycle. The Supreme Court ruled that this accident did not qualify as an industrial accident (산업재해) because the commute was not under the employer's control or management (지배·관리).

Key takeaways
  • CaseA worker was injured in a motorcycle accident while commuting home after employer-mandated overtime work, using his own personal motorcycle.
  • OutcomeThe Supreme Court denied the worker's claim, ruling that the commute was not under the employer's control or management, and therefore did not qualify as a work-related injury.
  • LessonEmployers are generally not held liable for commuting accidents unless they directly provide or control the means of transportation used by the employee.
Issues
  • Requirements for recognizing an accident occurring during a commute as a work-related injury (업무상 재해)
  • Whether differing injury recognition standards between public officials and general workers violate the principle of equality (평등원칙)
  • The scope of an employer's control and management (지배·관리) when a worker uses their own personal means of transportation
Key reasoning

Under Korean labor law, an injury sustained during a commute can only be recognized as an industrial accident if the commute occurred under the employer's control or management (지배·관리). Since the worker used his own personally owned motorcycle to travel home, rather than employer-provided transportation, the commute could not be considered to be under the employer's supervision or control. Therefore, despite the fact that the overtime work was mandated by the employer, the subsequent commute-related accident fell outside the scope of employer responsibility. As a result, the injury did not meet the legal requirements for classification as a work-related injury (업무상 재해).

Full text (English, AI translation) 3,577 chars

[Plaintiff, Appellant]

[Defendant, Appellee] Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service

[Judgment Below] Daegu High Court Decision 2006Nu1716 decided March 16, 2007

[Order]

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the appeal are to be borne by the Plaintiff.

[Reasoning]

The grounds of appeal are examined.

"Occupational accident" under Article 4, Subparagraph 1 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (Act No. 8373, before its full amendment on April 11, 2007; hereinafter the "Industrial Accident Insurance Act") refers to an accident occurring in the course of performing the relevant work duties, based on the employment contract between the worker and the business owner, under the control and supervision of the business owner, or in the course of ordinary activities incidental thereto, and caused by such duties. However, even though a worker's commuting to and from work is closely and inseparably related to the duty of providing labor, the choice of method and route of commuting is generally left to the worker, and thus it cannot generally be said to be under the control and supervision of the business owner; and since the Industrial Accident Insurance Act does not contain a special provision recognizing, as an occupational accident, an accident occurring while a worker commutes by an ordinary method and route, an accident occurring during commuting cannot become an occupational accident merely because the method and route of commuting chosen by the worker were ordinary. Therefore, in order for an accident occurring during commuting to constitute an occupational accident, it must be a case where the worker's commuting process can be deemed to have been under the control and supervision of the business owner, such as where the worker used transportation provided by the business owner or used transportation equivalent thereto as arranged by the business owner (see Supreme Court Decision 99Du9025 delivered on December 24, 1999; Supreme Court Decision 2005Du4458 delivered on September 29, 2005; Supreme Court en banc Decision 2005Du12572 delivered on September 28, 2007, etc.), and the fact that the standards for accidents differ between public officials and general workers does not violate the constitutional principle of equality (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu15523 delivered on March 14, 1995; Constitutional Court Decision 93Hun-Ma45 delivered on September 27, 1993).

In light of the above legal principles and the record, having found the facts as indicated in the judgment based on the evidence lawfully adopted by the court below, the court below's determination — that even taking into account the circumstance that the Plaintiff suffered the accident in this case while commuting home after completing overtime work as directed by the non-party company, the process by which the Plaintiff commuted home using his own motorcycle cannot be deemed to have been under the control and supervision of the non-party company, the business owner — and its consequent rejection of the Plaintiff's assertion that the injury and disease in this case constitute an occupational accident, is justified, and there is no error of law concerning the misapprehension of legal principles regarding occupational accidents as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and this Decision is rendered as stated in the Order, with the unanimous consent of the Justices participating in the ruling.

Justice Park Il-hwan (Presiding Justice), Kim Yong-dam (Justice in charge), Park Si-hwan, Kim Neung-hwan

【참조조문】

[1] 구 산업재해보상보험법(2007. 4. 11. 법률 제8373호로 전문 개정되기 전의 것) 제4조 제1호(현행 제5조 제1호 참조)

[2] 구 산업재해보상보험법(2007. 4. 11. 법률 제8373호로 전문 개정되기 전의 것) 제4조 제1호(현행 제5조 제1호 참조), 산업재해보상보험법 시행규칙 제35조 제4항, 공무원연금법 제25조, 공무원연금법 시행규칙 제14조, 헌법 제11조 제1항

[3] 구 산업재해보상보험법(2007. 4. 11. 법률 제8373호로 전문 개정되기 전의 것) 제4조 제1호(현행 제5조 제1호 참조)

【참조판례】

[1] 대법원 1999. 12. 24. 선고 99두9025 판결(공2000상, 325), 대법원 2005. 9. 29. 선고 2005두4458 판결(공2005하, 1698), 대법원 2007. 9. 28. 선고 2005두12572 전원합의체 판결(공2007하, 1685) / [2] 대법원 1995. 3. 14. 선고 94누15523 판결(공1995상, 1638), 헌법재판소 1993. 9. 27. 선고 93헌마45 결정(헌공3, 351)

【주문】·【이유】 전문 1,411자 · 펼쳐 보기

【원고, 상고인】

【피고, 피상고인】 근로복지공단

【원심판결】 대구고법 2007. 3. 16. 선고 2006누1716 판결

【주 문】

상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고가 부담한다.

【이 유】상고이유를 판단한다.

구 산업재해보상보험법(2007. 4. 11. 법률 제8373호로 전문 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 ‘산재보험법’이라 한다) 제4조 제1호 소정의 ‘업무상의 재해’라 함은 근로자와 사업주 사이의 근로계약에 터잡아 사업주의 지배·관리하에서 당해 근로업무의 수행 또는 그에 수반되는 통상적인 활동을 하는 과정에서 이러한 업무에 기인하여 발생한 재해를 말한다. 그런데 비록 근로자의 출·퇴근이 노무의 제공이라는 업무와 밀접·불가분의 관계에 있다 하더라도, 일반적으로 출·퇴근 방법과 경로의 선택이 근로자에게 유보되어 있어 통상 사업주의 지배·관리하에 있다고 할 수 없고, 산재보험법에서 근로자가 통상적인 방법과 경로에 의하여 출·퇴근하는 중에 발생한 사고를 업무상 재해로 인정한다는 특별한 규정을 따로 두고 있지 않은 이상, 근로자가 선택한 출·퇴근 방법과 경로의 선택이 통상적이라는 이유만으로 출·퇴근 중에 발생한 재해가 업무상의 재해로 될 수는 없다. 따라서 출·퇴근 중에 발생한 재해가 업무상의 재해로 되기 위하여는 사업주가 제공한 교통수단을 근로자가 이용하거나 또는 사업주가 이에 준하는 교통수단을 이용하도록 하는 등 근로자의 출·퇴근 과정이 사업주의 지배·관리하에 있다고 볼 수 있는 경우라야 하고 ( 대법원 1999. 12. 24. 선고 99두9025 판결, 대법원 2005. 9. 29. 선고 2005두4458 판결, 대법원 2007. 9. 28. 선고 2005두12572 전원합의체 판결 등 참조), 공무원과 일반 근로자의 재해 기준을 같이하지 않는다고 하여 헌법상의 평등의 원칙에 위배된다고 할 수 없다( 대법원 1995. 3. 14. 선고 94누15523 판결, 헌법재판소 1993. 9. 27. 선고 93헌마45 결정 참조).

위 법리와 기록에 비추어 살펴보면, 원심이 적법하게 채택한 증거들에 의하여 판시사실을 인정한 다음, 비록 원고가 소외 회사의 지시에 따른 연장근무를 마친 후 퇴근하다가 이 사건 사고를 당한 사정을 참작하더라도, 원고가 그 소유의 오토바이를 이용하여 퇴근한 과정은 사업주인 소외 회사의 지배·관리하에 있었다고 볼 수 없다고 판단하여 이 사건 상병이 업무상 재해에 해당한다는 원고의 주장을 배척한 조치는 정당하고, 거기에 상고이유 주장과 같은 업무상 재해에 관한 법리오해의 위법이 없다.

그러므로 상고를 기각하기로 하여 관여 대법관의 일치된 의견으로 주문과 같이 판결한다.

대법관 박일환(재판장) 김용담(주심) 박시환 김능환

Related statutes

구 산업재해보상보험법 제4조 제1호

Similar cases

Cases with high content similarity to this one.

#1
2008구단13586 · 서울행정법원 0001-01-01
Revocation of Disposition Denying Medical Care Benefits
#2
2008구단3055 · 대구지방법원 0001-01-01
Revocation of Disposition Denying Medical Care Benefits
#3
2011누1214 · 부산고등법원 0001-01-01
Revocation of Disposition Denying Industrial Accident Medica
#4
2011누11541 · 서울고등법원 0001-01-01
Revocation of Disposition Denying Medical Care Benefits
#5
2013누24114 · 서울고등법원 0001-01-01
Revocation of Disposition Denying Medical Care Benefits

Cases citing this decision

2006두2022 · 대법원 2008-03-27
Revocation of Disposition Denying Survivor Compensation and

Related tools & guides

AI answers need an account (free accounts: 2 per month) — submit and you'll return to this question after logging in. Search and case reading stay free.

File a complaintlogin requiredCalculatorsFind more cases

Cross-check the original: 국가법령정보센터 (auxiliary link)