Workbear재주넘는곰
한국어 Log in Sign up free
◉ Workbear case detail — 대법원 95누6946 · https://workbear.kr/precedents/8530 · Viewed 2026-10-27
대법원 95누6946

Revocation of Denial of Medical Care Benefits Approval (요양불승인처분취소)요양불승인처분취소

Decided1995. 09. 15. 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.

A worker was injured in a traffic accident while driving home from work in his own personal car. Even though the company had provided some financial support for the vehicle's purchase or maintenance costs, the Supreme Court ruled that this did not constitute a work-related injury (업무상 재해), because the worker himself retained control over the management and use of the vehicle, meaning it was not under the employer's control or supervision.

Key takeaways
  • CaseA worker was injured in a car accident while driving his own personal vehicle home from work.
  • OutcomeThe court ruled this was not a work-related injury because the employer did not control or manage the worker's commute.
  • LessonProviding subsidies for an employee's personal vehicle does not automatically make commuting accidents the employer's liability unless the employer actually controls the method or route of travel.
Issues
  • Requirements for recognizing an accident during commuting to/from work as a work-related injury (업무상 재해)
  • Whether an accident during a commute using one's own personal vehicle qualifies as a work-related injury
Key reasoning

For an accident occurring during a worker's commute to be recognized as a work-related injury (업무상 재해), the commute must have been under the employer's control and management (지배·관리). When a worker uses his own personal vehicle and freely chooses the method and route of commuting, this cannot be considered as being under the employer's control, regardless of any financial assistance the employer may have provided toward the vehicle's costs. The mere provision of subsidies for a personal vehicle's purchase or upkeep does not transform the commute into an activity supervised or managed by the employer. Since the worker exercised full discretion over how and when to drive home, the employer bore no responsibility for the resulting accident under industrial accident compensation principles.

Summary of Decision (English, AI translation)

[1] "Injury caused by occupational duty" under Article 3(1) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (산업재해보상보험법) (before its full amendment by Act No. 4826 of December 22, 1994) refers to an injury arising from the performance of the relevant work duties, or from ordinary activities incidental thereto, undertaken by an employee under the employment contract with the business owner and under the business owner's control and management. Since an employee commuting to and from work can generally choose the method and route of commuting, such commuting cannot be deemed to be under the control or management of the employer. Therefore, in order for an injury occurring during commuting to be recognized as an occupational injury, it must fall under a case where the employee's commuting process can be deemed to be under the control and management of the employer, such as where the employee uses a means of transportation provided by the employer or a means of transportation equivalent thereto as designated by the employer.

[2] In a case where an employee, having freely chosen the method and route of commuting home, was involved in a traffic accident and suffered injury while driving his own privately owned car home from work, the court held that even though the vehicle was registered with the company pursuant to the company's vehicle management regulations and the company, as the business owner, was to subsidize the vehicle purchase cost or maintenance expenses, the authority to manage and use the vehicle actually belonged to the employee, and the commuting process at the time of the accident could not be deemed to have been under the control and management of the company as employer; therefore, the injury suffered by the employee did not constitute an occupational injury under the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

Full text (English, AI translation) 3,094 chars

[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff's Litigation Counsel: Attorney Cho Du-yeon
[Defendant, Appellee] Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service (Before correction: Director of the Seoul Regional Labor Office)
[Judgment Below] Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu34915 rendered on April 13, 1995

[Order]

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

[Reasoning]

The Court examines the grounds of appeal submitted by the Plaintiff's litigation counsel.

"Occupational accident" as defined in Article 3(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (산업재해보상보험법) refers to an accident that arises from and in the course of an employee performing the assigned work duties, or the ordinary activities incidental thereto, under the employer's control and management pursuant to an employment contract with the employer. Since an employee commuting to and from work generally has the freedom to choose the method and route of commuting, such commuting cannot be regarded as being under the employer's control or management. Accordingly, for an accident occurring during commuting to be recognized as an occupational accident, it must fall under circumstances where the employee's commuting process can be deemed to be under the employer's control and management, such as by using transportation provided by the employer or transportation equivalent thereto that the employer required the employee to use (see this Court's Decisions 93Nu13073 rendered on January 19, 1993; 92Nu16805 rendered on May 11, 1993).

If the facts are as lawfully established by the court below, in this case the Plaintiff voluntarily chose the method and route of commuting home and was involved in a traffic accident and suffered injury while driving his own privately owned vehicle home from work. Even though the vehicle was registered with the non-party company pursuant to the company's vehicle management regulations, and the non-party company, as the business owner, was to subsidize the vehicle purchase cost or maintenance cost, the authority to manage and use the vehicle actually belonged to the Plaintiff. Therefore, it cannot be said that the commuting process at the time of the accident was under the control and management of the non-party company, the employer, and thus the injury suffered by the Plaintiff must be held not to constitute an occupational accident. The judgment of the court below, which is to the same effect, is justified, and it cannot be said that there is any error of law, as argued in the grounds of appeal, in misapprehending the legal principles concerning occupational accidents or in misinterpreting the Ministry of Labor's directive concerning the standards for occupational accidents. The argument is without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are to be borne by the losing party. This judgment is rendered as stated in the Order by the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.

Justice Ji Chang-gwon (Presiding Justice), Cheon Gyeong-song (Justice in charge), An Yong-deuk, Shin Seong-taek

【판결요지】

가. 구 산업재해보상보험법(1994.12.22. 법률 제4826호로 전문 개정되기 전의 것) 제3조 제1항 소정의 업무상의 재해라 함은 근로자가 사업주와의 근로계약에 기하여 사업주의 지배·관리하에서 당해 근로업무의 수행 또는 그에 수반되는 통상적인 활동을 하는 과정에서 이러한 업무에 기인하여 발생한 재해를 말하므로, 출·퇴근 중의 근로자는 일반적으로 그 방법과 경로를 선택할 수 있어 사용자의 지배 또는 관리하에 있다고 볼 수 없고 따라서 출·퇴근 중에 발생한 재해가 업무상의 재해로 인정되기 위하여는 사용자가 근로자에게 제공한 차량 등의 교통수단을 이용하거나 사용자가 이에 준하는 교통수단을 이용하도록 하여 근로자의 출·퇴근과정이 사용자의 지배·관리하에 있다고 볼 수 있는 경우에 해당되어야 한다.

나. 퇴근방법과 그 경로를 임의로 선택하여 자기 소유의 승용차를 운전하고 퇴근하던 도중에 교통사고가 발생하여 재해를 당한 경우, 비록 그 차량이 회사의 차량관리규정에 따라 회사에 등록되고 사업자인 회사가 차량구입비 또는 유지비를 보조하도록 되어 있었더라도, 차량에 대한 관리·사용권한은 실제로 근로자에게 속하여 있었던 것이고, 사고 당시 통근과정이 사용자인 회사의 지배·관리하에 있었다고 볼 수 없으므로, 근로자가 입은 재해는 구 산업재해보상보험법상 업무상의 재해에 해당하지 않는다고 한 사례.

【참조조문】

구 산업재해보상보험법(1994.12.22. 법률 제4826호로 전문 개정되기 전의 것) 제3조 제1항(현행 제4조 제1호 참조)

【참조판례】

가. 대법원 1993.1.19. 선고 92누13073 판결(공1993상,745), 1993.5.11. 선고 92누16805 판결(공1993하,1730)

【주문】·【이유】 전문 1,108자 · 펼쳐 보기

【원고, 상고인】 원고 소송대리인 변호사 조두연

【피고, 피상고인】 근로복지공단 (경정 전 : 서울지방노동청장)

【원심판결】 서울고등법원 1995.4.13.선고 94구34915 판결

【주 문】

상고를 기각한다.

상고비용은 원고의 부담으로 한다.

【이 유】 원고 소송대리인의 상고이유를 본다.

산업재해보상보험법 제3조 제1항 소정의 “업무상의 재해”라 함은 근로자가 사업주와의 근로계약에 기하여 사업주의 지배·관리하에서 당해 근로업무의 수행 또는 그에 수반되는 통상적인 활동을 하는 과정에서 이러한 업무에 기인하여 발생한 재해를 말하므로, 출·퇴근 중의 근로자는 일반적으로 그 방법과 경로를 선택할 수 있어 사용자의 지배 또는 관리하에 있다고 볼 수 없고 따라서 출·퇴근 중에 발생한 재해가 업무상의 재해로 인정되기 위하여는 사용자가 근로자에게 제공한 차량등의 교통수단을 이용하거나 사용자가 이에 준하는 교통수단을 이용하도록 하여 근로자의 출·퇴근과정이 사용자의 지배·관리하에 있다고 볼 수 있는 경우에 해당되어야 할 것인바(당원 1993.1.19. 선고 93누13073 판결; 1993.5.11. 선고 92누16805 판결 참조), 사실관계가 원심이 적법히 확정한 바와 같다면, 이 사건의 경우 원고는 퇴근방법과 그 경로를 임의로 선택하여 자기 소유의 승용차를 운전하고 퇴근하던 도중에 교통사고가 발생하여 재해를 당한 것으로서, 비록 위 차량이 소외 회사의 차량관리규정에 따라 회사에 등록되고 사업자인 소외 회사가 차량구입비 또는 유지비를 보조하도록 되어 있었더라도, 차량에 대한 관리·사용권한은 실제로 원고에게 속하여 있었던 것이라고 할 것이어서, 사고 당시 통근과정이 사용자인 소외 회사의 지배·관리하에 있었다고 볼 수 없다고 할 것이므로, 원고가 입은 재해는 업무상재해에 해당하지 않는다고 보아야 할 것이다. 같은 취지의 원심판단은 정당하고 거기에 소론과 같은 업무상재해에 관한 법리오해 및 업무상재해기준에 관한 노동부예규의 해석 오류의 위법이 있다고 할 수 없다. 논지는 이유 없다.

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

대법관 지창권(재판장) 천경송(주심) 안용득 신성택

Related statutes

구 산업재해보상보험법 제3조 제1항

Similar cases

Cases with high content similarity to this one.

#1
2008두17899 · 대법원 2009-02-12
Case for Revocation of Disapproval of Medical Care Benefits
#2
95누16769 · 대법원 1996-02-09
Revocation of Non-Approval of Medical Care Benefits (요양불승인처분
#3
2008구단942 · 인천지방법원 0001-01-01
Revocation of Disposition Denying Medical Care Benefits
#4
2011구합1112 · 전주지방법원 0001-01-01
Revocation of Disposition Denying Medical Care Benefits
#5
2008구단12101 · 서울행정법원 2009-05-12
Revocation of Disposition Denying Medical Care Benefits

Cases citing this decision

2005두4458 · 대법원 2005-09-29
Revocation of Disposition Denying Survivor's Lump-Sum Compen
2002두5290 · 대법원 2002-09-04
유족보상및장의비부지급결정처분취소
99두9025 · 대법원 1999-12-24
Revocation of Non-Payment Disposition of Survivor Benefits
99다24744 · 대법원 1999-09-03
Mutual Aid Insurance Payment Case (공제금)
97누13009 · 대법원 1997-11-14
Revocation of Non-Payment Decision on Survivor Benefits

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)