인문학
사회과학
자연과학
공학
의약학
농수해양학
예술체육학
복합학
DBpia AI
AI 에이전트
AI 아이디어
AI 리더
AI 뷰어
Citeasy
크롬 서지관리 다운로드
지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
피인용 0
초록·키워드
Recently, the importance of introducing legal provision that ensures the compensation for commuting accidents is now emerging as one of the hottest issues in policy making. For a long time scholars have been in agreement on admitting commuting accident as occupational accidents, but legislations and court cases consistently have shown differences from them. For example, most of precedent cases firmly denied the commuting accidents as occupational accidents with one exception where he/she is in under the status of employer"s control and management. Later, the control and management theory was broadened into “limited interrelate impartiablity” and “conventional passage and methodology” was suggested. Among them, dissenting opinion made a great advancement in this case supporting that “principle interrelate impartiablity”. In the meantime, the actual ruling has been stuck to the “employer"s control and management status”, which has been the yardstick with which Supreme Court use which needs to be examined further.
First of all, the problems of this case so far is as follows: 1. violation of interpreting the positive law 2. ignoring the interpreting of interrelate impartiablity 3. misunderstanding the social security right 4. ruling based on policy 5. misunderstanding the principle of equality 6. lack of consistency in its logic. As the cases mentioned above are serious, this study examines the unjust cases and presents rational alternatives.
To examine further, this case violated the positive law as they ignored the interpreting the positive law itself. And this case admitted that commuting is related with duties but denied its relation with the occupational accidents as it is not under the control or management of employer. Accordingly, employees" family is entitled to have compensation and funeral expenses as they are basic necessities for life guaranteed by the Constitution and Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act. Plus, even though government can add beneficiary optionally in terms of welfare right but the cases must be dealt by the same standard unless they are in the same category. Finally, although commuting, business trip are not occupational work, it is certain that they are closely related with it. Accordingly, we should apply the law based on the universal validity, not by enforcement regulations which are invalid.
First of all, the problems of this case so far is as follows: 1. violation of interpreting the positive law 2. ignoring the interpreting of interrelate impartiablity 3. misunderstanding the social security right 4. ruling based on policy 5. misunderstanding the principle of equality 6. lack of consistency in its logic. As the cases mentioned above are serious, this study examines the unjust cases and presents rational alternatives.
To examine further, this case violated the positive law as they ignored the interpreting the positive law itself. And this case admitted that commuting is related with duties but denied its relation with the occupational accidents as it is not under the control or management of employer. Accordingly, employees" family is entitled to have compensation and funeral expenses as they are basic necessities for life guaranteed by the Constitution and Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act. Plus, even though government can add beneficiary optionally in terms of welfare right but the cases must be dealt by the same standard unless they are in the same category. Finally, although commuting, business trip are not occupational work, it is certain that they are closely related with it. Accordingly, we should apply the law based on the universal validity, not by enforcement regulations which are invalid.
#출퇴근 재해
#업무상 재해
#사용자의 지배관리상태
#제한적 밀접물가분성론
#통상적 경로 및 방법론
#원칙적 밀접불가분성론
#산업재해보상보험법
#commuting accident
#occupational accident
#the status of employer"s control and management
#limited interrelate impartiablity
#conventional passage and methodology
#principle interrelate impartiablity
#Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act
본문·목차
인공지능 문자 인식 모델을 통해 추출된 텍스트로, 일부 오타나 오류가 포함될 수 있으나 지속적으로 개선 중입니다.
오류를 발견하셨다면 해당 부분을 드래그한 후 ' 를 통해 신고해주세요.
오류를 발견하셨다면 해당 부분을 드래그한 후 ' 를 통해 신고해주세요.
최근 본 자료 전체보기
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2016-336-002201849
