The Seoul Administrative Court has recognized a fatal highway accident as a compensable commuting accident under South Korean workers’ compensation law, ordering COMWEL to cancel its denial of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses (Seoul Administrative Court, January 22, 2026, Case No. 2025Guhap54242).

Project Overview

A construction site safety manager employed in Eumseong County, North Chungcheong Province, used an employer-provided dormitory but commuted directly from his family home in Pyeongtaek three to four times per week. On October 18, 2023, after returning home and caring for two toddlers (aged 37 and 23 months) while his wife recovered from spinal surgery, he departed at 8:20 p.m. to reach the worksite by 5:00 a.m. the next morning. He died in a highway collision 25 minutes later. COMWEL denied the survivors’ claim, asserting that the stop at the family home constituted a route deviation breaking workers’ compensation coverage.

Ground 1 — The Homeward Commute Had Already Ended

The court held that “the deceased’s commute home on the day of the accident was completed without any route deviation or interruption” (Decision, p. 5). Because the worker had arrived home without detour, the childcare and household duties performed there were simply daily life following a completed commute — not a deviation within one. A new outbound commute began when he left home at 8:20 p.m. Given the 90-minute travel time between Pyeongtaek and the worksite, the court further found that departing the previous evening to meet a 5:00 a.m. shift constituted “a normal commuting route and method” under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (IACIA) (Decision, p. 5).

Ground 2 — Childcare Qualified as a Route-Deviation Exception

As an alternative holding, the court found that even if the stop at the family home were characterized as a route deviation, the exception under IACIA Enforcement Decree Article 35(2)(7) would apply. Raising two toddlers while a spouse recovered from surgery made the childcare and household duties unavoidable — qualifying as acts equivalent to the enumerated exceptions for daycare drop-offs (subparagraph 4) and care for hospitalized family members (subparagraph 6) (Decision, pp. 5–6). This represents a significant application of the catch-all provision in subparagraph 7.

Company Dormitory — Convenience Facility, Not Legal Residence

COMWEL’s central argument was that the dormitory constituted the worker’s legal residence, making the trip a move between two residences rather than a commute. The court rejected this outright: “the deceased’s primary residence was the Pyeongtaek family home, and the Eumseong dormitory was merely a convenience facility provided by the employer” (Decision, p. 5). South Korean courts assess the substantive reality of a worker’s living arrangements — family location, registration, and actual daily life patterns — rather than treating employer-provided sleeping quarters as a legal residence by default.

Legal Expertise

Atlas Legal advises and represents clients across a broad range of administrative and employment law matters, including workers’ compensation disputes, administrative litigation, and corporate counseling. Our attorneys bring experience navigating COMWEL proceedings — from initial internal review through administrative litigation — and develop tailored legal strategies grounded in the specific facts of each case.

Click here for detailed information