"Death After 1:1 Drinking with Boss... Work-Related Accident" vs "Personal Dinner Gathering" [Seocho-dong Legal Talk]

Cleaning Security Staff Member Dies After Dinner with Department Head
Bereaved Family Denied Survivor Benefits and Funeral Expenses, Claims "Dinner" Was Work-Related Injury
Workers' Compensation Corporation States "Private Gathering... Cannot Provide Benefits"

The photo is unrelated to the article content.

"If you delay again, you'll feel sorry to the manager, so even if you're alone, meet as the representative." (Colleagues)

October 22, 2020. This was a request A received from his workplace colleagues. He was in charge of cleaning and security duties at a public corporation and was scheduled to have a dinner gathering with three colleagues and his superior, Manager B. Although the meeting had been postponed two to three times over the past month, the colleagues each had their own reasons and did not attend on the day.

Manager B, as the head of the department, had been making efforts to organize gatherings regularly. This was to alleviate the sense of alienation among field workers and boost morale. Ultimately, only A, who was on night duty, changed his work schedule to attend the dinner.

The dinner took place at a restaurant near A’s home. Discussions included not only personal difficulties but also work-related inconveniences such as purchasing cleaning equipment and performing tasks in different cleaning zones.

The dinner ended after about 2 hours and 30 minutes. The costs were borne by Manager B and A, who paid 41,000 KRW and 12,000 KRW respectively. This department often had situations where managers or employees paid for dinner expenses themselves due to insufficient business promotion funds.

Manager B escorted the intoxicated A home and then left. However, A fell backward while entering the password at his front door. He was found by his wife after midnight and was helped inside. Around 4 a.m., his wife discovered bleeding from his head and called 119. Subsequently, A received treatment for traumatic cerebral hemorrhage but passed away in March last year.

The wife filed a claim for survivor benefits and funeral expenses with the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service. However, the service rejected the claim, stating that "it is difficult to consider this dinner event as one organized or participated in under the direction of the business division."

In response, the wife sought cancellation of the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service’s decision at the Administrative Court. She argued that "the overall process of the dinner was under the employer’s control and management, so work-relatedness should be recognized," and that "the accident occurred due to impaired normal behavior and judgment caused by excessive drinking at the dinner."

According to the court on the 7th, the Seoul Administrative Court Administrative Division 8 (Presiding Judge Lee Jeong-hee) recently ruled in favor of the bereaved family.

The court stated, "Manager B was a Grade 3 technical employee and the head of the department, while A was a non-graded labor worker. They had no personal friendship. It is difficult to view the dinner as a purely private gathering for socializing." "Manager B had a work-related need to listen to employees’ difficulties and regularly held dinners with them."

The court also cited as key evidence for determining employer control and management: ▲ The difficulty in postponing the dinner schedule further, leading to A attending as a representative, ▲ The discussion of work-related matters during the dinner, ▲The dinner venue being 9 minutes from the workplace but 20 minutes by car from Manager B’s home, making the distance not excessively far, among other factors. The court further emphasized that "the fact that Manager B paid with a personal card or that A paid part of the bill does not mean the dinner gathering turned into a private meeting."

Regarding the absence of prior reporting or approval for the dinner, the court explained, "Manager B likely judged that since the dinner was a small-scale event, only 2 out of 5 people attended on the day, and the costs were low, separate approval was unnecessary."

The court added, "Manager B’s drinking capacity is about three bottles of soju, which is higher than average, so A inevitably drank excessively to keep up. There is no evidence that A drank excessively independently and voluntarily."

The Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service has appealed the first-instance ruling.

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