'Work-Related Accident' Recognized for Employee Who Died After Three Consecutive Company Gatherings

Published 22 Sep.2025 16:02(KST)

[Court Ruling]

A court has ruled that if an employee dies after excessive drinking at consecutive company gatherings, it constitutes a work-related accident.

On July 11, the Seoul Administrative Court's Division 3 for Administrative Cases (Presiding Judge Choi Sujin) ruled in favor of the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by the spouse of Mr. B, an employee of the wireless division of A Electronics, against the Korea Workers' Compensation & Welfare Service, seeking to cancel the denial of survivor's benefits and funeral expenses (Case No. 2023GuHap50653).

Reference photo to aid understanding of the article. Pixabay

[Facts of the Case]

Mr. B, who was in charge of sales management for Mexico, attended company gatherings for three consecutive days starting June 29, 2022. On July 2, Mr. B was found dead from acute alcohol poisoning in his car in the parking lot of his home.

The gatherings on June 29 and 30 were paid for with company funds, but the July 1 gathering was paid for by Mr. B and four other participants. The meal expenses were covered by Mr. B and two of his colleagues, while two local Mexican employees paid for the alcohol. They consumed two bottles of soju, two bottles of beer, and two to three bottles of whiskey (40% alcohol by volume), among other drinks.

According to the physician's opinion, the July 1 gathering had the greatest impact on Mr. B's death. Mr. B's spouse argued that this gathering was work-related. The Korea Workers' Compensation & Welfare Service countered that it was a private gathering for social purposes.

[Court's Judgment]

The court stated, "Although the July 1 gathering was not an official company event, it was arranged by Mr. B and two of his colleagues for local employees who were about to depart for Mexico." The court also noted, "Given that Mr. B was scheduled for a long-term business trip to Mexico in August 2022 and needed support from local employees, that it would have been difficult for Mr. B to refuse drinking offers from local employees who were not of lower rank than him, and that the meal expenses borne by Mr. B and his colleagues were not insignificant, it is reasonable to view the July 1 gathering as work-related."

The court further stated, "There is no dispute that the June 29 and 30 gatherings were work-related. Even if the July 1 gathering was the main cause of the injury or illness, it can be inferred that Mr. B's blood alcohol concentration would have been higher because he consumed alcohol before the alcohol from June 29 and 30 had been fully metabolized."