사업장 위험의 현실화와 산재보험법상 구상권의 제한

Article 87, Paragraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Act establishes the relationship of responsibility between companies, Korea Labor Welfare Corporation(insurer), and third parties. Here, the Supreme Court interprets the third party as ‘a person who does not have an industrial accident insurance relationship with the injured worker’ based on the absence of an industrial accident insurance relationship, and views the realization of risks in the workplace as one of the factors to be considered in determining the presence or absence of an industrial accident insurance relationship. However, the presence or absence of an industrial accident insurance relationship should be viewed as a standard for setting the personal scope for industrial accident compensation, so it is an inappropriate concept to use as a standard for determining whether an occupational accident is caused by a third party's actions. Since it is reasonable to judge the third party subject to the exercise of the right to indemnification based on whether or not the risks of the workplace have realized, a third party in the main text of Article 87 (1) of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act refers to a person who is responsible for compensating damages caused by negligent acts to injured workers regardless of the actualization of risks normally associated with the work of the workplace. When determining whether an accident occurred due to a risk posed by the workplace, I think that the nature and appearance of the risk posed by the workplace, and the control and management of the risk must be taken into consideration. This interpretation is a method of harmoniously interpreting the main text and proviso of Article 87, Paragraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act, which determines the final attribution of compensation liability based on the realization of risks posed by the workplace.