Court Rules Courier Working in Two-Person Team Eligible for Industrial Accident Compensation After Heatstroke Death

A court has ruled that individuals who perform courier delivery services as part of a two-person team are also eligible for industrial accident compensation.

The Seoul Administrative Court, specifically Administrative Division 3 (Presiding Judge Ho Sun-ho), ruled in favor of the plaintiff in a lawsuit recently filed by the bereaved family of A against the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service, seeking to revoke the decision to deny survivor benefits and funeral expenses.

A died while performing delivery work in a two-person team with an acquaintance, with the presumed cause of death being heatstroke.

While A's family filed a claim with the agency for survivor benefits and funeral expenses, the agency rejected the claim on the grounds that A did not qualify as a service provider under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

The bereaved family filed an appeal lawsuit, and the court ruled in their favor.

The court pointed out that service providers subject to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act include courier service workers under the Living Logistics Services Act.

It also explained that a courier service worker is defined as a person engaged in tasks such as collecting and delivering cargo by entering into a delivery service transport consignment contract or employment contract with a courier service provider or a business branch.

The court noted, "Although A's acquaintance was the one who actually signed the transport contract with the courier branch office, it was intended from the time of the contract that A would work alongside the acquaintance in a two-person team, and the branch office also treated A as an equal contractual party with the acquaintance while fully aware of this."

Therefore, the court judged that "even though A was not listed as the nominal party on the transport contract, A qualifies as a courier service worker under the Living Logistics Services Act."

The compensation agency argued that the Living Logistics Services Act includes a provision requiring courier service workers to obtain a cargo motor transport business license, and since A did not obtain such a license, A could not be considered a courier service worker.

However, the court dismissed this argument, stating, "Whether or not a cargo motor transport business license was obtained does not serve as an essential criterion when determining the necessity of protection under the service provider provisions of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act."
※ Please note: This article was translated by AI and may contain errors.