[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff's litigation representative, Attorney Kim Yang-il
[Defendant, Appellee] Head of Seoul Seobu District Labor Office
[Judgment Below] Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu26609, decided June 11, 1992
[Order]
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of the appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
[Reasoning]
The Court examines the grounds of appeal submitted by the Plaintiff's litigation representative.
The court below held as follows: an occupational accident under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (산업재해보상보험법) refers to an accident that occurs during the course of performing one's duties and is attributable to those duties. Where an employee leaves the workplace for business reasons and is on a business trip, the performance of duties is generally recognized throughout the entire course of the business trip; however, where conduct during the business trip is not conduct that is naturally or ordinarily incidental to the business trip, but is instead arbitrary or private conduct, the performance of duties cannot be recognized, and therefore an accident occurring in connection with such conduct does not constitute an occupational accident. Based on this premise, the court below found the following facts: the deceased, Non-party 1, who had been working as the regional sales manager at Non-party Korea Glaxo Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Non-party Company"), the employer enrolled in industrial accident compensation insurance under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, was driving a Pride passenger vehicle (vehicle registration number 1 omitted) owned by Non-party 2 at approximately 5:55 p.m. on March 3, 1991, proceeding at a speed of about 75 kilometers per hour toward Daejeon along a right-curving road in front of Songjeong-ri, Yeonsan-myeon, Nonsan-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, when he crossed the center line and collided with a bus (vehicle registration number 2 omitted) traveling from the opposite direction, resulting in his death at the scene shortly thereafter. Meanwhile, around February 22, 1991, in order to boost the morale of its sales employees, Non-party Company planned to hold a "total mobilization advance rally" at Songnisan, in which 178 sales employees would participate, over a two-day, one-night period from March 4 to March 5, and established a detailed plan whereby sales employees belonging to the regional branch office were to gather at the Oncheonjang Hotel in Yuseong, Chungcheongnam-do, from 7:00 p.m. to around 8:00 p.m. on Sunday, March 3, stay overnight there, and depart for Songnisan the following morning. Accordingly, Non-party 1, who was the regional sales manager at the head office and had been appointed as the overall commander of the said rally, was also scheduled to arrive at the said Oncheonjang Hotel around 7:00 p.m. on March 3; however, the day before, around 5:00 p.m. on March 2, Non-party 3, the head of Non-party Company, called him, spoke of certain work-related difficulties, and asked him to come down to Daejeon early the next day to talk. Accordingly, on the morning of March 3, Non-party 1 departed Seoul by express bus and arrived at the Daejeon Express Bus Terminal at around 11:00 a.m. There, the deceased Non-party 1 borrowed the Pride passenger vehicle (vehicle registration number 1 omitted) owned by Non-party 2, an employee of Non-party Company, and then, together with Non-party 3, went to a nearby coffee shop, where they met two women in their early forties, Non-party 4 and Non-party 5, who were acquainted with Non-party 3. The four of them decided to go for a drive and have a meal together; the deceased Non-party 1 personally drove the vehicle to a restaurant in Jinsan-myeon, Geumsan-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, where they ate native chicken and spent time. On the way back, the deceased Non-party 1 suggested taking a detour toward Nonsan for a drive, seated one of the two women in the front passenger seat and, with Non-party 3 and the other woman in the back seat, drove the vehicle toward Nonsan, whereupon the above traffic accident occurred. Based on these findings, the court below determined that the act of the deceased Non-party 1 in driving the vehicle to take the women out for pleasure, unrelated to his duties, could not be said to be conduct falling within the scope of activity naturally or ordinarily incidental to Non-party 1's business trip, and that this must be regarded as private conduct outside the scope of the performance of duties; therefore, the death of the deceased Non-party 1 does not constitute an occupational accident.
If the facts are as lawfully established by the court below, the above determination of the court below is justified and acceptable in light of the content of the relevant statutory provisions (see this Court's Decision 84Nu403, decided December 24, 1985), and it cannot be said that the judgment below erred in misunderstanding the legal principles concerning occupational accidents under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act as argued in the grounds of appeal. Moreover, this Court's Decision 90Nu10483, decided April 9, 1991, cited in the grounds of appeal, concerns a case with facts different from the present case, and thus it cannot be said that the above determination of the court below conflicts with the purport of that decision. Accordingly, the argument is without merit.
Therefore, the Plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are to be borne by the Plaintiff, the losing party. The opinions of the participating Justices being unanimous, it is so ordered as stated in the Order.