A Seoul court has ruled that the death of a delivery driver who was injured while returning home after a dinner gathering with colleagues does not constitute a work-related accident. The court determined there was no causal relationship between the death and work duties because the gathering was not held under the employer's supervision or control.
According to legal sources on May 22, the Seoul Administrative Court's 3rd Administrative Division (Presiding Judge Choi Su-jin) ruled against the bereaved family of Mr. A in January in their lawsuit seeking to overturn the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service's decision to deny survivor benefits and funeral expenses.
Mr. A signed a consignment contract with a B Courier franchise in December 2022 and worked as a delivery driver. In December 2023, after having dinner with other delivery drivers from the same workplace, Mr. A fell from a pedestrian overpass while returning home. Despite receiving hospital treatment, he died of traumatic brain hemorrhage in February of the following year.
The bereaved family filed a claim for survivor benefits, arguing the death constituted a work-related injury. However, the welfare service denied the claim, stating the gathering was "an off-duty meeting held voluntarily for fellowship purposes." The family then filed an administrative lawsuit, arguing the dinner was not merely a private gathering but an occasion to share work-related expertise and information.
The court sided with the welfare service. "It is difficult to view the dinner gathering as having been held under the employer's supervision or control," the court stated. "Therefore, it is difficult to recognize a substantial causal relationship between Mr. A's death from the accident after the gathering and his work duties."
The court further noted that "there is no evidence that the employer or manager of the workplace directed or organized the dinner gathering" and that "the delivery drivers did not seek prior understanding or approval from the workplace regarding the gathering." The court also cited that no workplace personnel attended the dinner and that the drivers autonomously determined the schedule and location.
While acknowledging that "work-related topics such as sharing delivery know-how and measures for handling lost packages appear to have been discussed," the court ruled that "this was likely because all attendees were delivery drivers who naturally gravitated toward common topics of interest."