Workbear재주넘는곰
한국어 Log in Sign up free
◉ Workbear case detail — 대법원 99두9025 · https://workbear.kr/precedents/8259 · Viewed 2026-10-27
대법원 99두9025

Revocation of Non-Payment Disposition of Survivor Benefits유족급여등부지급처분취소

Decided1999. 12. 24. Court대법원Employer won
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.

In this case, a worker died in a traffic accident while commuting home in his own personal car. The Supreme Court ruled that even though the company provided fuel cost support, the commute was not considered an industrial accident (산업재해) because it was not under the employer's control or management. For commuting accidents to qualify as work-related injuries (업무상 재해), the commute must occur using transportation provided by the employer or under the employer's control.

Key takeaways
  • CaseA worker died in a car accident while driving his own personal vehicle home from work, despite receiving fuel cost support from his employer.
  • OutcomeThe Supreme Court denied survivor benefits, ruling that using one's own vehicle for commuting—even with employer fuel subsidies—does not constitute being under the employer's control or management.
  • LessonEmployers and workers should understand that commuting accidents are only covered as work-related injuries when the employer directly provides transportation or otherwise controls the commuting process, not merely when financial support like fuel costs is given.
Issues
  • Whether an accident occurring during commuting qualifies as a work-related injury (업무상 재해)
  • The criteria for determining whether a commute is under the employer's control and management (지배·관리)
Key reasoning

For an accident during commuting to be recognized as a work-related injury (업무상 재해), the commute must either use transportation provided by the employer or occur under the employer's control and management. In this case, the worker used his own personally-owned vehicle to commute home. The Court held that merely receiving financial support for fuel costs from the employer does not establish that the commute was under the employer's control or management. Since the commute was essentially a private activity conducted at the worker's own discretion using his own vehicle, it fell outside the scope of employer control necessary for work-related injury classification, regardless of the fuel subsidy provided.

Summary of Decision (English, AI translation)

[1] An accident occurring while an employee is commuting to or from work, even though commuting is closely and inseparably related to work in the sense of the provision of labor, cannot generally be deemed to be under the employer's control and management, since the choice of the means and route of commuting is generally left to the employee. Therefore, in order for an accident occurring during commuting to constitute an occupational accident, it must be a case where the employee's commuting process can be deemed to be under the employer's control and management, such as where the employee uses a means of transportation provided by the employer or uses a means of transportation equivalent thereto as arranged by the employer.

[2] In a case where an employee died in a traffic accident while driving his own passenger car on his way home from work, the court below held that this did not constitute an occupational accident on the ground that the commuting process was not under the employer's control and management and that the employee could not be deemed to have used a means of transportation provided by the employer, and the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's determination.

Full text (English, AI translation) 3,212 chars

[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff
[Defendant, Appellee] Korea Workers' Compensation & Welfare Service
[Judgment Below] Seoul High Court Decision 99Nu2705, decided July 1, 1999

[Order]

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

[Reasoning]

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Even though commuting to and from work is closely and inseparably related to the duty of providing labor, an accident occurring during a worker's commute cannot generally be deemed to have occurred under the employer's control and management, because the method and route of commuting are generally left to the worker's own discretion. Accordingly, in order for an accident occurring during commuting to be recognized as a work-related accident, it must be shown that the worker used transportation provided by the employer, or that the employer had the worker use transportation equivalent thereto, such that the worker's commuting process can be regarded as being under the employer's control and management (see Supreme Court Decision 95Nu16769, decided February 9, 1996; Supreme Court Decision 95Nu6946, decided September 15, 1995; Supreme Court Decision 94Nu15523, decided March 14, 1995, etc.).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found as follows: the deceased worked until 1:00 a.m. on the day of the accident and died in a traffic accident that occurred while he was driving his own passenger car home; at the time he was returning home, it was the middle of the night, making it difficult to use other means of transportation such as taxis; the branch manager of the non-party company had confirmed that the deceased was not driving under the influence of alcohol, had asked him to drive carefully, and at the same time had instructed him not to be late for work that day; and although the non-party company paid fuel costs, parking fees, and the like under the name of business activity expenses, and subsidized vehicle purchases, to sales employees such as the deceased who frequently used vehicles for work purposes. However, the court below determined that these circumstances alone were insufficient to conclude that the deceased's commute home was under the control and management of the non-party company, the employer, or that the above passenger car constituted transportation equivalent to that provided by the employer, and accordingly held that the deceased's death due to the above traffic accident could not be recognized as a work-related accident under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (산업재해보상보험법).

Upon examining the record and the legal principles set forth above, the above determination of the court below is justified, and there is no error in the judgment below, such as a misapprehension of the legal principles concerning work-related accidents, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are to be borne by the losing party. This judgment is rendered as set forth in the Order, in accordance with the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.

Justice Lee Yong-hoon (Presiding Justice), Kim Hyung-sun, Cho Mu-je, Lee Yong-woo (Justice in charge)

【판결요지】

[1] 근로자의 출·퇴근시에 발생한 재해는, 비록 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 없으므로, 출·퇴근 중에 발생한 재해가 업무상의 재해가 되기 위하여는 사업주가 제공한 교통수단을 근로자가 이용하거나 또는 사업주가 이에 준하는 교통수단을 이용하도록 하는 등 근로자의 출·퇴근과정이 사업자의 지배·관리하에 있다고 볼 수 있는 경우여야 한다.

[2] 근로자가 자신의 승용차를 운전하여 퇴근하던 중 교통사고로 사망한 사안에서 퇴근과정이 사업자의 지배·관리하에 있지 않고, 사업자가 제공한 교통수단을 이용한 것으로 볼 수 없다는 이유로 업무상 재해에 해당되지 않는다고 한 원심의 판단을 수긍한 사례.

【참조조문】

[1] 산업재해보상보험법 제4조 제1호

[2] 산업재해보상보험법 제4조 제1호

【참조판례】

[1][2] 대법원 1995. 9. 15. 선고 95누6946 판결(공1995하, 3435), 대법원 1996. 11. 15. 선고 96누10843 판결, 대법원 1997. 11. 14. 선고 97누13009 판결(공1997하, 3880) / [1] 대법원 1996. 2. 9. 선고 95누16769 판결(공1996상, 982)

【주문】·【이유】 전문 1,116자 · 펼쳐 보기

【원고, 상고인】 원고

【피고, 피상고인】 근로복지공단

【원심판결】 서울고법 1999. 7. 1. 선고 99누2705 판결

【주 문】

상고를 기각한다.

상고비용은 원고의 부담으로 한다.

【이 유】 상고이유를 본다.

근로자의 출·퇴근시에 발생한 재해는, 비록 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 없으므로, 출·퇴근 중에 발생한 재해가 업무상의 재해가 되기 위하여는 사업주가 제공한 교통수단을 근로자가 이용하거나 또는 사업주가 이에 준하는 교통수단을 이용하도록 하는 등 근로자의 출·퇴근과정이 사업자의 지배·관리하에 있다고 볼 수 있는 경우여야 한다(대법원 1996. 2. 9. 선고 95누16769 판결, 1995. 9. 15. 선고 95누6946 판결, 1995. 3. 14. 선고 94누15523 판결 등 참조).

원심판결 이유에 의하면, 원심은, 망인이 사고 당일 새벽 1시까지 근무하다가 그 소유의 승용차를 운전하여 귀가하던 중 일어난 교통사고로 인하여 사망하였고, 귀가 당시는 한밤중이라 택시 등 다른 교통수단을 이용하기 어려웠으며 소외 회사의 지점장이 음주운전이 아님을 확인하고 조심운전을 당부함과 동시에 당일 출근시간에 늦지 않도록 지시하였고, 소외 회사는 망인과 같이 근무를 위한 차량이용이 많은 영업사원들에게 영업활동비 명목으로 유류비, 주차비 등을 지급하고 차량구입을 보조하고 있다고 하더라도, 그와 같은 사정만으로는 망인의 위 퇴근과정이 사업자인 소외 회사의 지배·관리하에 있다거나, 위 승용차가 사업자가 제공한 것에 준하는 교통수단이라고 볼 수 없다는 이유로, 망인의 위 교통사고로 인한 사망이 산업재해보상보험법 소정의 업무상 재해에 해당한다고 할 수 없다고 판단하였다.

기록과 위 법리에 비추어 살펴볼 때 원심의 위와 같은 판단은 정당하고, 거기에 상고이유로 주장하는 바와 같이 업무상 재해에 관한 법리오해 등의 위법이 있다고 할 수 없다.

그러므로 상고를 기각하고 상고비용은 패소자의 부담으로 하기로 하여 관여 대법관의 일치된 의견으로 주문과 같이 판결한다.

대법관 이용훈(재판장) 김형선 조무제 이용우(주심)

Related statutes

산업재해보상보험법 제4조 제1호

Similar cases

Cases with high content similarity to this one.

#1
97누13009 · 대법원 1997-11-14
Revocation of Non-Payment Decision on Survivor Benefits
#2
2005두12572 · 대법원 2007-09-28
Revocation of Disposition Denying Survivor Benefits, etc.
#3
2003구합29286 · 서울행정법원 2004-11-10
Revocation of Disposition Denying Survivors' Benefits, etc.
#4
2013두17817 · 대법원 2014-02-27
Revocation of Non-Payment Disposition of Survivor Benefits a
#5
95구29538 · 서울고법 1996-03-14
Revocation of Disposition Denying Survivors' Benefits, etc.

Cases citing this decision

2007두6991 · 대법원 2007-10-26
Revocation of Disapproval of Medical Care Benefits (요양불승인처분취
2007두2791 · 대법원 2007-10-26
Revocation of Non-Approval of Medical Care Benefits (요양불승인처분
2005두12572 · 대법원 2007-09-28
Revocation of Disposition Denying Survivor Benefits, etc.
2004두9838 · 대법원 2006-06-27
Revocation of Disposition Denying Initial Medical Care Benef
2002두5290 · 대법원 2002-09-04
유족보상및장의비부지급결정처분취소

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)