독일 사회법 상 출퇴근 재해에 대한 판례 법리와 그 시사점

Abstract

Despite legislative improvements, the problem still remains. Under the Industrial Insurance Act, the regulations on commuting accidents are very abstract and consist of general concepts, and considerable legal and analytical arguments are expected in the future. There is still ambiguity about what goes to and from work, and when it can be recognized as a normal route and method. In order to evaluate commuting, this would mean a shift between the residence and the place of work, meaning that the concept of residence and place of work must be pre-explained. What it means to leave or stop a commuting route, and whether to establish a causal relationship between such a departure and commuting disaster, will still be subject to legal debate. In the end, we have no choice but to rely on the formation of the Richterreccht law through the accumulation of case law. Regrettably, it has only been more than a year since the law was enforced, and the reality is that it is too hasty to expect the establishment of sufficient case law. However, Germany has already had regulations on commuting disasters under social law for a long time, and the social court's case based on this has been considerably accumulated. Since the introduction of the disaster insurance system in 1884, Germany had provided compensation for commuting disasters through the Imperial Insurance Ordinance by 1925.Since then, there have been numerous cases of commuting disasters in the seventh volume of the German Social Code. In the following section, we intend to introduce the case law formed in the German social court to derive suggestions on the interpretation of the current Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act on future commuting accidents.