Delivery Driver Who Died of Heatstroke While Working in a Two-Person Team Is Covered by Industrial Accident Insurance, Court Rules

[Financial News] A court has ruled that a delivery driver who died of heatstroke while transporting packages as part of a two-person team is eligible for industrial accident insurance coverage.
According to the legal community on the 31st, the Seoul Administrative Court’s Administrative Division 3, presided over by Judge Ho Seong-ho, ruled in favor of the plaintiff on the 10th of last month in a lawsuit filed by the bereaved family of delivery driver A against the EAP, seeking to overturn its decision not to pay survivor benefits and funeral expenses.
A died of what was presumed to be heatstroke while working on package deliveries with a friend as a two-person team.
The bereaved family applied to the EAP for survivor benefits and funeral expenses, but the agency refused, saying A did not qualify as a 'provider of labor' under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act. The family then filed suit to challenge the decision.
The court found that A did qualify as a provider of labor protected under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act. It said such providers include parcel delivery workers under the Act on Living Logistics Services.
The Act on Living Logistics Services defines parcel delivery workers as people who enter into a consignment contract or employment contract for parcel delivery services with a parcel delivery business operator or branch office, and who engage in tasks such as collecting and delivering cargo.
The bench said, "The person who actually signed the delivery contract with the branch office was A's friend, but from the time the contract was made, A was expected to work together with the friend as a two-person team, and the branch office recognized this and treated A as an equal party to the contract."
It therefore concluded that, even though A was not named as a party in the contract, he could still be regarded as a parcel delivery worker who had in substance entered into a consignment contract and performed the work.
The court also cited the fact that the branch office's job posting stated, 'Two-person team work possible with one vehicle,' and that A's side had informed the branch office before the contract was signed that they would be working together.
The EAP argued that A could not be considered a parcel delivery worker under the Act on Living Logistics Services because he had not obtained a cargo truck transport business license.
However, the court rejected that argument, saying, "Whether a cargo truck transport business license was obtained is not an essential criterion when determining whether a person needs protection under the provider-of-labor provisions of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act."
 
[email protected] Choi Eun-sol Reporter