[Plaintiff, Appellant]
[Defendant, Appellee] Head of Seoul Northern District Labor Office
[Judgment Below] Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu3993 rendered on August 21, 1992
[Order]
The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
[Reasoning]
The Court examines the grounds of appeal submitted by the Plaintiff's litigation representative.
1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the following facts: that the Plaintiff joined the non-party company and worked as a switchman (조차원); that on November 17, 1987, the Plaintiff was elected as the chairman of the labor union of the non-party company, and thereafter, with the approval of the non-party company pursuant to Article 11 of the collective bargaining agreement, the Plaintiff was relieved of his original duties as a switchman under the employment contract and worked exclusively on union affairs, while receiving the same treatment as before from the said company; that around November 19, 1988, while the Plaintiff was working exclusively on union affairs, he developed physical disabilities such as speech paralysis and right hemiplegia due to illnesses including subarachnoid hemorrhage; and other findings regarding the circumstances and causes of the Plaintiff's illness. Based on these findings, the court below determined that although the Plaintiff's above illness appeared to have resulted from the accumulation of mental and physical overwork while the Plaintiff, as the union chairman, was performing union duties, the Plaintiff, at the time the illness occurred, was not performing his original duties under the employment contract but was exclusively engaged in union duties that were outside the employer's direction and supervision, and that such duties did not constitute "work" in the sense of "occupational injury" (업무상재해), which is a requirement for a claim for medical care benefits, etc. under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (산업재해보상보험법). Accordingly, the court below rejected the Plaintiff's claim in this case seeking revocation of the disapproval of medical care benefits.
2. However, as recognized by the facts established by the court below and the related evidence, if it is the case that the Plaintiff was relieved of his original duties as a switchman under the employment contract and worked exclusively on union affairs with the consent of the non-party company, the employer; that at the time the injury occurred, the Plaintiff retained the status of an employee; and that the Plaintiff's illness arose from physical and mental overwork in the course of performing union duties, then, absent special circumstances, it is reasonable to interpret this as an occupational illness under Article 3(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and thus subject to insurance benefits under the said Act.
The reason is as follows. The union duties undertaken by the Plaintiff are duties closely related to the labor management affairs of the non-party company, which is the business owner; therefore, it may be viewed that the non-party company, as the business owner, merely consented to have the Plaintiff, while still retaining the status of an employee, undertake union duties in place of his original duties under the employment contract, out of the necessity of forming smooth and stable labor-management relations (under Article 12 of the collective bargaining agreement, the non-party company may order a full-time union official such as the Plaintiff to return to his original post when the grounds for full-time union service end or when there is a particular need for his return due to work requirements). If that is indeed the case, then even though the Plaintiff, at the time the illness occurred, was engaged solely in union duties not subject to the direction and supervision of the non-party company, the employer, considering the close relationship between such duties and the company's labor management affairs, the circumstances under which the Plaintiff came to undertake such duties, the fact that the Plaintiff maintained the status of an employee, and other factors relating to the Plaintiff's role and status, if the Plaintiff's illness arose from overwork during the performance of union duties, and if an industrial accident compensation insurance relationship has been established between the non-party company and the Defendant with the Plaintiff as the beneficiary, then treating the Plaintiff as a beneficiary of insurance benefits in the same manner as an ordinary employee performing his original duties under the employment contract is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, which is to protect employees from risks arising from the employment relationship (provided, however, that in the case of a person such as the Plaintiff who retains employee status while engaging solely in union duties, it is reasonable to interpret that, by the nature of such duties, injuries arising from activities related to labor organizations at a higher level or in federated relationships unconnected with the employer's business, from unlawful union activities, or from union activities occurring after entering a stage of dispute in confrontation with the employer, cannot be regarded as occupational injuries).
If that is the case, then the court below's determination, based solely on the fact that the Plaintiff was engaged in union duties at the time of the occurrence of this accident, either misapprehended the legal principles under Article 3(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, or failed to sufficiently examine whether the Plaintiff was a beneficiary entitled to insurance benefits under the said Act. The argument pointing this out is well-founded.
3. Therefore, the judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded, and this judgment is rendered as stated in the Order by the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.
Justice Ahn Woo-man (Presiding Justice), Kim Yong-jun, Cheon Kyung-song (Justice in charge), Ahn Yong-deuk