A. Background of the Case
In this case, the Constitutional Court ruled that the provisions of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, which do not recognize as an occupational accident an accident suffered by a worker while commuting on foot or by using means of transportation other than a company vehicle, one he or she owns or public transportation, and only recognizes injuries caused by an accident while commuting under the control and management of the employer as an occupational accident (hereinafter referred to as " Instant Provisions"), do not conform to the Constitution, and ordered that the Instant Provisions continuously apply until the legislature amends the abovementioned provisions by December 31, 2017.
The petitioner suffered injuries caused by an accident which occurred while he was returning home after work by bicycle. His medical treatment was disapproved on the grounds that his injuries did not constitute an occupational accident. He filed a lawsuit requesting that this disposition be revoked, and requested a constitutionality review. Upon the dismissal of this motion, the petitioner filed a constitutional complaint.
The Constitutional had previously reviewed the constitutionality of the Instant Provisions, although the majority of five justices found that the Instant Provisions did not conform to the Constitution, the Instant Provisions were held constitutional as the quorum for striking down the provisions had not been met (2011Hun-Ba271, September 26, 2013; 2012Hun-Ka16, September 26, 2013).
B. Summary of the Decision
The Constitutional Court decided that the Instant Provisions do not conform to the Constitution, for the following reasons.
The industrial accident compensation insurance system (hereinafter referred to as "industrial accident insurance") in part functions to cover the business owner’s strict liability of compensation, and also serves to protect the livelihoods of the victim and his or her family from industrial accidents. Given this, protecting workers by recognizing normal commuting accidents as occupational accidents is consistent with the purpose of industrial accident insurance, which is to guarantee the livelihoods of employees. There are no reasonable grounds to discriminate against workers who have not been provided with or received support for transportation means by the employer in the recognition of occupational accidents. The failure of such recognition places workers who have suffered accidents and their families at great disadvantages.
Recognizing accidents on a conventional commute as occupational accidents may lead to financial setbacks of industrial accident insurances or the problem of raising insurance premiums paid by the employer, but such problems may be alleviated by limiting the coverage of compensation or making workers partly responsible for paying the premiums. Therefore, recognizing only those accidents that have occurred on a commute using a means of transportation provided by his or her employer as occupational accidents violates the principle of equality, because this discriminates against workers who have not been provided with a means of transportation provided by the employer, without reasonable grounds.
However, a legal vacuum may occur if the Court declares the simple unconstitutionality of the Instant Provisions; therefore, the Court orders that the Instant Provisions be applied until amended by the legislature by December 31, 2017.
Justice Ahn Chang-Ho delivered a concurring opinion in which he argued that it was necessary to tighten the assessment of equality in areas related to social rights, such as the right to receive industrial accident insurance.
Justices Kim Chang-Jong, Seo Ki-Seog and Cho Yong-Ho delivered a dissenting opinion, in which they argued that the Instant Provisions did not violate the Constitution because it was natural to exclude accidents on a conventional commute beyond the control and management of the employer from the scope of occupational accidents, considering the purpose of industrial accident insurance and the legal principles of occupational accidents. Also, they reasoned that the expansion of the scope of the protection of occupational accidents were issues to be solved by the state by gradually taking into account the financial conditions of industrial accident insurances.
C. Aftermath of the Case
There had been criticism that the scope of accidents on commutes recognized as occupational accidents were too limited, and this decision was viewed to have played a decisive role in encouraging the improvement of social policies (Jeon Gwang-Seok, Constitutional Problems and Legislative Policy under the Social Security Act).
After this decision, the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act was amended by Act No. 14933 on October 24, 2017, the Instant Provisions were deleted, and accidents that occurred on conventional commutes are now also included in occupational accidents due to the addition of a provision that defines a commute (Sub-Item 8 of Article 5) and a provision accidents that occur on commutes recognized as occupational accidents (Article 37 Section 1 Item 3).