After the year-end party, with colleagues at the third round... Traffic accident death is recognized as a work-related injury

[Asia Economy Reporter Seongpil Cho] The court ruled that the work-relatedness must be recognized for a worker who died in a traffic accident while drinking with colleagues after a year-end company dinner.

According to the legal community on the 21st, the Seoul Administrative Court Administrative Division 8 (Chief Judge Jonghwan Lee) ruled in favor of the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by the spouse of the deceased worker A against the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service, seeking cancellation of the denial of survivor benefits and funeral expenses. Previously, on December 27, 2018, A attended the year-end gathering of the company's regional business division, and after three rounds of drinking sessions, was crossing a road near his home when he was hit by a village bus and died. A's spouse claimed that A died due to a work-related accident and requested survivor benefits and funeral expenses, but the service rejected the claim. The service argued that the third drinking session A last attended was a social gathering not officially organized by the company, thus constituting a 'deviation or interruption of the usual commuting route.'

The key issue was whether the third drinking session was work-related. According to Supreme Court precedents, an event or gathering under the employer's control or management, without deviation from the route, is recognized as a work-related accident under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act. Based on this precedent, the court judged that the third drinking session was a work-related gathering. The presence of current and former subordinates from the team where A worked and the payment of the drinking expenses with a corporate card were grounds for this judgment. The court stated, "A attended the gathering not as a personal friend but as a superior and a middle manager of the company, aiming to encourage subordinates," and ruled that "within a broad scope, this was part of A's company duties."

Another issue was whether A deviated from the commuting route. After the third drinking session, A took an express bus home but fell asleep and missed his usual stop. After passing two stops, A got off the bus and was crossing the road when the accident occurred. The court ruled on this matter, stating, "Considering the circumstances of the accident, it can be seen as occurring during the usual route and method of commuting," and "the fact that A was partially at fault does not mean there was a deviation or interruption of the commuting route."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.