배재고 야구부 감독·선수 2명 출전정지 1개월…방관한 주심도 징계
We haven't written up this one. Hankyoreh has the full story — the link below goes straight to it.
This story
This is one outlet's version. Read the fullest account.
- A delivery man died of heatstroke while on a delivery job with a colleague. The court ruled that he was eligible for protection under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act. 고용노동부 '택배원' 분류에도 서울행정법원 "산재보험 적용해야" Although the Ministry of Employment and Labor classified him as a 'delivery man,' the Seoul Administrative Court ruled that he should be covered by industrial accident insurance. 원고는 유족입니다. 2019년 7월 22일, A씨는 B사와 C사와 각각 배송 계약을 맺고, 2인1조로 배송을 했습니다. The plaintiff is the bereaved family. On July 22, 2019, A was under a delivery contract with Company B and Company C, and was delivering with a colleague. A씨는 배송 중 온몸에 힘이 없고, 어지러움을 느꼈다고 합니다. 동료의 도움을 받아 차량으로 이동했고, 119에 신고했습니다. During delivery, A said he felt a lack of strength in his body and dizziness. With the help of his colleague, he moved to a vehicle and called 119. 구급대원이 도착했을 때, A씨는 이미 의식이 없었습니다. 병원으로 옮겨졌지만, 열사병으로 사망했습니다. When the paramedics arrived, A had already lost consciousness. He was taken to the hospital but died of heatstroke. 원고는 "A씨는 배송 업무를 하던 중 사망했다"며 "고용노동부 장관은 A씨를 '택배원'으로 분류했지만, A씨는 '택배원'에 해당하지 않는다며 보험급여 지급을 거부한 것은 위법하다"고 주장했습니다. The plaintiff argued that "A died while performing delivery duties" and that "the Minister of Employment and Labor classified A as a 'delivery man,' but the refusal to pay insurance benefits on the grounds that A does not fall under the category of 'delivery man' is illegal." 하지만 고용노동부는 "A씨는 '택배원'과 '퀵서비스 기사' 중 하나에 해당한다"며 "법적으로 보험 적용이 안 된다"고 했습니다. However, the Ministry of Employment and Labor said that "A corresponds to either a 'delivery man' or a 'quick service article'," and that "he is not legally covered by insurance." 1심 재판부는 "A씨는 계약 형식과 관계없이 실질적으로 종속된 관계에서 배송 업무를 했다"며 "산재보험법에서 정한 '사업자'의 지위에 있다고 보기 어렵다"고 판단했습니다. In the first trial, the court ruled that "A was substantially performing delivery work in a subordinate relationship, regardless of the contract form" and that "it is difficult to consider him as a 'business owner' under the Industrial Accident Insurance Act." 그러면서 "A씨를 '택배원'으로 분류할 수 없어 보험급여 지급 대상이 아니다"라는 고용노동부의 처분은 위법하다고 결론 내렸습니다. The court concluded that the Ministry of Employment and Labor's disposition that "A cannot be classified as a 'delivery man' and is therefore not eligible for insurance benefits" was illegal. 이에 따라 A씨 유족이 보험급여를 받을 수 있는 길이 열렸습니다. Accordingly, the bereaved family of A has been given an opportunity to receive insurance benefits. hani.co.kr
- 奈良県御所市のトンネルで車２台が正面衝突、1人が死亡 asahi.com
