Died while dispatched overseas as instructed by the head office “The Industrial Accident Insurance Act must be applied”

▲ Data Photo Image Today

A court ruled that it would be an occupational accident if the person died of an acute myocardial infarction while working under the direction of the headquarters even if they were dispatched overseas. The purpose is that workers dispatched overseas can be covered by the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (the Industrial Accident Insurance Act) if they have substantially the same work type as domestic workers.

The 7th administrative division of the Seoul Administrative Court (Presiding Judge Kim Kuk-hyun) announced on the 10th that the plaintiff won the lawsuit against the wife of a worker dispatched overseas to the Korea Labor Welfare Service to cancel the disposition of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses. It has been four months since the bereaved family filed a lawsuit. The company appealed on the 7th.

Acute myocardial infarction during dispatch to UAE construction site
Industrial Accident Disapproval by the Corporation “Not to Apply the Industrial Accident Insurance Act”

Mr. A worked as a full-time employee at the domestic construction site of Company B, a painting construction company, for 9 years from 2001. Then, according to the recommendation of the Abu Dhabi branch of the UAE nuclear power plant site, I started working in the UAE from around May 2015. He worked as a class leader in the Abu Dhabi branch and was in charge of personnel assignments, work orders, inspection and arrangement of construction sites, etc.

Then, in May 2020, he complained of pain while at work and underwent stent coronary angioplasty, but died of cardiac arrest 9 days later. Then, Mr. A’s wife asked the corporation to pay for the bereaved family’s benefits and funeral expenses. However, the Corporation refused, saying, “Acute myocardial infarction is recognized as an occupational disease, but the deceased died while dispatched overseas without additional insurance, so it is not subject to the Industrial Accident Insurance Act.” A’s wife filed a lawsuit in July last year.

The issue was whether Mr. A received the command and supervision of the head office abroad. This is because, if a worker is dispatched to an overseas project under the direction of the company, the employee may be subject to the Industrial Accident Insurance Act. In the overseas business division labor contract concluded by the company with Mr. A, ‘In the event of an occupational accident, compensation is provided through industrial accident insurance and workers’ compensation insurance’.

In addition, Article 122 (1) of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act stipulates, ‘For a person dispatched by an insured to work in a business outside of the Republic of Korea, if an application for insurance is obtained from the Corporation and is approved, the worker who uses the overseas dispatcher for the business within the territory of the insured person It can be regarded as a special case for overseas dispatchers.

“The place of work is overseas, I get paid at the head office”

The court ruled in favor of Mr. A’s wife, saying, “Only Mr. A’s place of work is outside the country, but he actually belongs to the head office and works under his command, so the Industrial Accident Insurance Act applies.” The court found that Mr. A was not hired exclusively for the UAE construction company, and that the department of work could be changed depending on the circumstances of the head office. In particular, it was judged that he was not identified as an overseas dispatcher, such as receiving instructions from the company’s executive director and receiving a salary from the head office.

The fact that the head office withheld Mr. A’s income tax was also cited as the basis. In the withholding tax receipt issued by the company, it was stated that Mr. A was not a dispatched worker. The head office confirmed and implemented personnel management, such as promotions and vacations, for employees of the Abu Dhabi branch, including Mr. A. Accommodation and airfare were also paid by the head office. Based on this, the court explained that “Mr. A is an employee belonging to the head office” and not a dispatched worker.

Attorney Yong-Jun Kim (Law Firm), who represented the family of Mr. A, said, “According to the social consensus that protection against industrial accidents for workers dispatched overseas is necessary, the deceased’s place of work is only overseas, but it is effectively transferred to the head office and is in the same position as domestic workers. “The company dispatched an employee to direct and supervise the deceased, and the fact that the deceased worked at a domestic construction site for about 9 years in this case, so it is difficult to conclude that the employment relationship ends only with the completion of overseas construction, etc. This has been reflected,” he explained.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *