2007. 12. 14, 법률 제8694호로 전면 개정된 현행 산재법은 구법과 달리 출퇴근 중의 사고에 대한 업무상 재해 인정기준을 법과 시행령에 명문으로 열거적으로 규정하고 있다. 이렇듯 현행 산재법과 구법과는 현저히 입법 태도 및 체계상의 차이가 있는바, 출퇴근 중의 사고에 대한 선행연구 논문과 대법원의 판결례에 대한 재검토가 요청되는 것이다. 출퇴근 중의 사고가 업무상 재해로 인정되기 위하여는 우선 출퇴근이 산재법상의 업무로 인정되어야 한다. 그것은 산재법상의 업무상 재해는 ‘업무상의 사유’로 인한 부상, 질병, 장해, 사망을 말하기 때문이다. 그런데 현행 산재법은 업무에 대한 개념 정의 규정을 두지 않고 있다. 그러므로 현행 산재법과 동법 시행령상에 제시된 여러 업무상 재해인정기준들 속에서 개념을 도출하는 것이 타당하고도 합리적인 방법이다. 따라서 산재법상의 업무란 “근로계약으로 인한 사용자의 지배․관리하에 있는 상태의 일 또는 그러한 상태에 있는 것으로 볼 수 있는 상태에서의 일”이라고 할 수 있다. 입법론적으로는 광범위하게 모든 출퇴근 행위를 업무로 보고 출퇴근 중의 사고를 모두 업무상 재해로 인정하자는 주장이 타당할 수 있다. 그러나 현행 산재법의 해석론상으로는 현행 법령의 기준에 적합한 경우와 적합하지 않더라도 그 해당 출퇴근에 대한 평가에 있어서 ‘업무성’이 인정되는 경우에만 이 법상의 업무상의 재해로 인정함이 타당하다. 출퇴근 중의 사고가 업무상의 재해로 인정되기 위하여는 우선 당해 근로자의 출근 경로가 출퇴근의 범위에 해당되어야 하고, 출퇴근을 위한 교통수단이 사업주의 지배관리하에 있는 것이거나 그렇게 평가되어야 한다. 나아가 출퇴근 행위와 사고 간 인과관계가 인정되어야 하는데, 원칙적으로는 모든 출퇴근 행위와 사고발생 간의 인과관계를 따져 상당한 인과관계가 인정되는 경우에 비로소 업무상 재해로 인정되어야 한다. 그런데 현행 산재법이 명문으로 출퇴근의 업무상 재해인정기준을 규정하고 있기 때문에 법령의 인정기준에 부합하는 경우에는 업무해당성 또는 업무와 사고발생 간의 인과관계를 논할 필요가 없을 것이며, 다만 사고와 발생상병 간의 인과관계만 논해 주면 될 것이다. 그러나 출퇴근 수단·경로 등이 산재법상의 업무해당성 요건을 충족하지 못한다 해서 무조건 모두 업무와 상당한 인과관계가 부정될 수는 없다고 본다. 즉 산재법 시행령의 규정은 형식은 열거적으로 규정되어 있지만 운영상으로는 예시적이어야 하므로, 비록 열거된 상황에 맞지 않는 상태하의 출퇴근 중의 사고라 할지라도, 당해 근로자의 업무와 밀접한 관련이 있어 ‘업무상의 사유’로 보여지는 상황에서의 사고 발생이라면 인과관계를 인정하여 업무상 재해로 인정하여야 한다고 본다.

The operative industrial accident compensation insurance act is wholly amended by No. 8694 as of 2007. 12. 14. Unlike the old law, it specifically stipulates the criteria for accidents during commute to and from work. Thus the currently operative law and the old law exhibit significant difference in legislative attitude and system, which requires reexamination on judicial precedents by the Supreme Court and previous study on accidents during commute to and from work. In order to be recognized as work-related accident, accidents during commute to and from work should be approved as a duty by the industrial accident compensation insurance act. However, the current law doesn't stipulate the conditions to be defined as 'duty'. Therefore, it would be reasonable and adequate to deduce the definition by combing through standards presented in the current law and enforced ordinances that determine the extent and range of accidents to be recognized as work-related accident. Consequently, 'duty' on industrial accident compensation insurance act would be any matter of affair that seems to be, or is under the management or control of an employer corresponding to the contract of labor. Legislatively, it appears appropriate to recognize all accidents during commute to and from work as work-related accident. However, the interpretation of currently operating law elucidate that an accident can be recognized as work-related accident only if the act of commuting is evaluated as 'duty' on industrial accident compensation insurance act. To recognize accidents during commute to and from work as work-related accident, the route heading for the office should fall under the range of commuting, and the vehicles for transportation should be, or be evaluated as being under the control and management of the business proprietor. Moreover, the causal relationship between the act of commuting and the accident should be confirmed. In principle, all commuting acts and causes of accident are thoroughly examined to determine work-related accident, which requires considerable causation to be recognized as work-related accident. However, since the currently operative law stipulates the criteria for an accident during commute to and from work to be regarded work-related accident, it wouldn't be necessary to discuss the causal relationship between the accident occurrence and 'duty' when the incident corresponds to the criteria. In this case, discussion would be required only on the causation between the accident and the wounded. Nevertheless, the interaction of cause and effect cannot be denied unconditionally simply because the transportation vehicle and route does not gratify the conditions of being related to his/her duty stipulated by the law. That is, while the regulations in the enforced ordinances of the law are specifically ruled, they should be illustrative for operation. Therefore, even if an accident commute to and from work doesn't fit in the specified category in the law, the causation will be recognized as long as it is closely connected to the responsibility or duty in regards to business, which subsequently should result in approving the accident as work-related accident.

The operative industrial accident compensation insurance act is wholly amended by No. 8694 as of 2007. 12. 14. Unlike the old law, it specifically stipulates the criteria for accidents during commute to and from work. Thus the currently operative law and the old law exhibit significant difference in legislative attitude and system, which requires reexamination on judicial precedents by the Supreme Court and previous study on accidents during commute to and from work. In order to be recognized as work-related accident, accidents during commute to and from work should be approved as a duty by the industrial accident compensation insurance act. However, the current law doesn't stipulate the conditions to be defined as 'duty'. Therefore, it would be reasonable and adequate to deduce the definition by combing through standards presented in the current law and enforced ordinances that determine the extent and range of accidents to be recognized as work-related accident. Consequently, 'duty' on industrial accident compensation insurance act would be any matter of affair that seems to be, or is under the management or control of an employer corresponding to the contract of labor. Legislatively, it appears appropriate to recognize all accidents during commute to and from work as work-related accident. However, the interpretation of currently operating law elucidate that an accident can be recognized as work-related accident only if the act of commuting is evaluated as 'duty' on industrial accident compensation insurance act. To recognize accidents during commute to and from work as work-related accident, the route heading for the office should fall under the range of commuting, and the vehicles for transportation should be, or be evaluated as being under the control and management of the business proprietor. Moreover, the causal relationship between the act of commuting and the accident should be confirmed. In principle, all commuting acts and causes of accident are thoroughly examined to determine work-related accident, which requires considerable causation to be recognized as work-related accident. However, since the currently operative law stipulates the criteria for an accident during commute to and from work to be regarded work-related accident, it wouldn't be necessary to discuss the causal relationship between the accident occurrence and 'duty' when the incident corresponds to the criteria. In this case, discussion would be required only on the causation between the accident and the wounded. Nevertheless, the interaction of cause and effect cannot be denied unconditionally simply because the transportation vehicle and route does not gratify the conditions of being related to his/her duty stipulated by the law. That is, while the regulations in the enforced ordinances of the law are specifically ruled, they should be illustrative for operation. Therefore, even if an accident commute to and from work doesn't fit in the specified category in the law, the causation will be recognized as long as it is closely connected to the responsibility or duty in regards to business, which subsequently should result in approving the accident as work-related accident.

Duty on Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Accidents During Commute to and From Work, Criteria for Recognition of Work-related Accident, Stipulated Conditions for an Accident that Occurred while Commuting to be Approved as an Industrial Accident while on Duty