[edit] Supreme Court Decision 2000Da2023 delivered on April 25, 2000 [Damages(Motor Vehicle)]

【Main Issues】

[1] The requirements for a worker's injury to be qualified as an occupational accident when the injury occurs while the worker uses the facilities in the place of business during the recess

[2] When a worker becomes involved in an automobile accident at the product loading and storage site inside the business premises on his or her way to the snack booth within the business premises to buy snacks during the recess, such an accident can be qualified as an occupational accident because the above activity is a physiological and rational behavior accompanying worker's business activities.

[3] When an administrative disposition or ruling on administrative appeal becomes finally binding due to the lapse of the appeal period, the meaning of such final binding effect

【Summary of Decision】

[1] Since the workers are entitled to do any activities during the recess and it cannot be deemed that the workers are under the control or management of the business operator, the injury that occurred as a result of certain behavior while using the facilities in the place of business during the recess cannot be qualified as an occupational accident. However, since the activities of the workers during the recess are related to the provision of labor service after the recess, an activity of the worker during the recess can be qualified as an occupational accident as long as the course of such activity can be deemed as under control or management of the business operator including, but not limited to, the case where such activity of the worker during the recess is considered as a business activity, an activity for the preparation of or clearing the business activity or a physiological behavior or a rational or necessary behavior customarily recognized to accompany the business activity.

[2] When a worker becomes involved in an automobile accident at the product loading and storage site on his or her way to the snack booth within the place of business to buy snacks during the recess, such an accident can be qualified as an occupational accident because the above activity is a physiological and rational behavior accompanying worker's business activities

[3] Generally, when an administrative disposition or ruling on administrative appeal becomes finally binding due to the lapse of the appeal period, its final binding effect only means that the person who has suffered the infringement of the legal interest by such disposition can no longer contest the effect of such disposition or ruling, and, furthermore, the effect of res judicata associated with the judgment does not exist in such dispositions or rulings. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the facts comprising the grounds of the disposition or the legal determination was finally established, or that the parties or the court was bound by such disposition and, as a result, unable to assert claims or make decisions contrary thereto.

【Reference Provisions】 [1] Item 1 of Article 4 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act / [2] Item 1 of Article 4 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act / [3] Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act [Administrative Disposition, Generally], Article 37 of the Administrative Appeals Act

Article 4 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (Definition) For the purpose of this Act,

1. The term "occupational accident" means any injury, disease, physical disability, or death of any worker, which is caused by his or her performing duties. In this case, standards for recognizing the occupational accident shall be prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Labor

2., 3. <omitted>

Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act (Purpose). The purpose of this Act is to relieve citizens from the infringement of their rights or interests by the illegal dispositions of administrative agencies and the exercise or non-exercise of the public power, and to settle properly disputes over the rights involved in public law or the application of law, through administrative litigation procedures.

Article 37 of the Administrative Appeals Act (Binding Force, etc. of Ruling). (1) A ruling shall bind the administrative agency, the appellee, and other administrative agencies concerned.

(2) If a ruling is made ordering a disposition which notwithstanding the request from the party was refused or not replied to by omission, the administrative agency concerned shall make without delay a new disposition regarding the previous request in conformity with the contents of such ruling. In this case, if that administrative agency fails to make the disposition, the ruling authority concerned may, upon the request of the party, order in writing that disposition to be made within a fixed period of time, and if it is not made within such period, it may make the disposition directly.

(3) The provisions of the former part of paragraph (2) of this Article shall apply mutatis mutandis to a case where a disposition made upon the request is revoked by a ruling for its procedural illegality or unreasonableness.

(4) If a ruling authority takes a direct disposition under the latter part of paragraph (2), it shall notify thereof the administrative agency concerned which shall, upon receiving the notification of such fact, consider the disposition taken by the ruling authority as its own and take necessary measures such as management, supervision, etc. pursuant to the related Acts and subordinate statutes.

(5) If a disposition notified publicly pursuant to the provisions of the Acts and subordinate statutes is revoked or altered by a ruling, the administrative agency which has made the disposition, shall immediately give a public notice that the disposition is revoked or altered.

(6) If a disposition notified to the interested persons other than the party to the disposition pursuant to the provisions of the Acts and subordinate statutes is revoked or altered by a ruling, the administrative agency which has made the disposition shall notify it without delay to the interested persons that the disposition is revoked or altered.

【Reference Cases】 [1] Supreme Court Decision 92Nu11107 delivered on October 9, 1992 (Gong1992, 3152), Supreme Court Decision 94Da60509 delivered on May 26, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2258), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu14633 delivered on August 23, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2886) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 92Nu17181 delivered on April 13, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 1409), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu5437 delivered on August 27, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2648), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu21927 delivered on November 8, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 3281)

【Plaintiff, Appellee】 Lee Jong-suk and 3 others

【Defendant, Appellant】 Hae-Dong Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Office Ilshin, Attorneys Kim, Gyo-Chang and 5 others, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

【Court of First Instance】 Western Branch of Seoul District Court Judgment 98Gadan17155 delivered on June 2, 1999

【Court of Second Instance】 Seoul District Court Judgment 99Na55907 delivered on December 16, 1999

【Disposition】 The part of the judgment of the court below that ruled against the defendant-appellant by ordering the defendant-appellant to pay to the plaintiff Lee Jong-suk in excess of 20,000,000 won and to each of the plaintiffs Lee Chun-ku, Lee Young-ku and Lee Seon-ok in excess of 13,330,000 won shall be reversed and the relevant part of the case shall be remanded to the Appellate Division of Seoul District Court.

【Reasoning】 The grounds for appeal are examined as follows.

1. This case rose out of an accident where the non-party A, who was a driver of a truck owned by non-party Saehan Industries Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'non-party company'), killed the non-party Kim Ki-sook, who was employed at the non-party company and was on the way to the snack booth within the place of business near the main gate during the recess, by hitting and passing over her with the truck while he was driving the truck at the product loading and storage site. The court below, citing the reasoning of the court of first instance, determined that the defendant, as the insurer who entered into a composite automobile insurance contract with the non-party company, was responsible for compensating the plaintiffs, who are the heirs of the deceased, for the damage incurred by the accident in this case. In response to the defendant's assertion hat the defendant should be exempt from the responsibility pursuant to the terms and conditions of the automobile insurance contract since the above accident was an occupational accident eligible for the compensation under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, determined that the defendant's assertion could not be justified considering the fact that it was difficult to conclude that the above accident was qualified as an occupational accident and also the fact that, although the plaintiffs requested the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation to pay the lump sum compensation for bereaved family and the funeral expense due to the above accident, the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation decided not to pay such amount on the ground that the above accident was not qualified as an occupational accident under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and the plaintiffs became ineligible for the accident compensation by not filing any further proceedings of objection.

2. However, when an injury occurs as the result of certain behavior while using the facilities in the place of business during the recess such accident cannot be qualified as an occupational accident, since the workers are entitled to do any activities during the recess and it cannot be deemed that the workers are under the control or management of the business operator. On the other hand, since the activities of the workers during the recess are related to the provision of labor service after the recess, an activity of a worker during the recess can be qualified as an occupational accident as long as the course of such activity can be deemed as under control or management of the business operator including, but not limited to, the case where such activity of the worker during the recess is considered as a business activity, an activity for the preparation of or clearing the business activity or a physiological behavior or a rational or necessary behavior customarily recognized to accompany the business activity. (See Supreme Court Decision 95Nu14633 delivered on August 23, 1996.) According to the records, it can be ascertained that the deceased got into the accident while she was on her way to buy snacks(bread) at the snack booth within the business premises near the main gate of the non-party company during the 10-minute recess and the accident occurred at the product loading and storage site, which was the facilities within the place of business of the non-party company. Therefore, the above accident shall be qualified as an occupational accident as the activity of the deceased buying snacks (bread) at the snack booth that was a welfare facility for the employees during the 10-minute recess was a physiological or rational behavior accompanying the workers' inherent business activities.

Thus, the determination of the court below that the above accident was not qualified as an occupational accident was an reversible error by misinterpreting the legal principle on the occupational accident under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

In addition, generally, when an administrative disposition or ruling on administrative appeal becomes finally binding due to the lapse of the appeal period, its final binding effect only means that the person who has suffered the infringement of the legal interest by such disposition can no longer contest the effect of such disposition or ruling and the res judicata recognized in the judgment does not exist in such dispositions or rulings. Therefore, neither the facts comprising the ground of the disposition or the legal decision would be confirmed nor would the parties or the court be bound by such disposition and able to assert claims or make decisions contrary thereto (See Supreme Court Decision 93Nu5437 delivered on August 27, 1993, Supreme Court Decision 93Nu21927 delivered on November 8, 1994.), and the above determination of the court below based on a different position violates the law by misinterpreting the legal principle on the res judicata (the effect of continued existence) of the administrative disposition.

Accordingly, all grounds for appeal shall be accepted. Hence, the part of the judgment of the court below that ruled against the defendant-appellant by ordering the defendant to pay to the plaintiff Lee Jong-suk in excess of 20,000,000 won and to each of the plaintiffs, Lee Chun-ku, Lee Young-ku and Lee Seon-ok in excess of 13,330,000 won shall be reversed and the relevant part of the case shall be remanded to the Appellate Division of Seoul District Court. This decision is delivered with the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Yoo Ji-dam (Presiding Justice)

Chi Chang-kwon

Shin Seong-taek (Justice in charge)

Suh Sung

This is a legal document in the public domain according to Korean Copyright Law.