Core Viewpoint - The Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security has issued "Opinions (III)" to clarify the application of the Work Injury Insurance Regulations, aiming to better protect the legal rights of employees and employers [1][5]. Group 1: Work Injury Recognition Criteria - The document specifies the three essential elements for work injury recognition: "working time, working place, and working cause" [5][7]. - "Working time" includes legally mandated hours, contractual hours, employer-specified hours, time spent on temporary assignments, and overtime [7]. - "Working place" encompasses areas where the employer can effectively manage employees' daily activities, locations related to specific tasks, and reasonable areas between multiple work sites [9]. - "Working cause" refers to injuries sustained while performing job duties, completing assigned tasks, or protecting the employer's legitimate interests [11]. Group 2: Commuting and Remote Work - The document clarifies that injuries occurring during commutes are recognized if the employee travels between their residence and workplace within a reasonable time and route [13]. - For remote work, injuries can be recognized as work-related if there is sufficient evidence proving that the injury occurred due to work reasons, regardless of the employee working from home [15][19]. - Simple communications via modern tools like WeChat or email are not considered work-related causes [17]. Group 3: Exclusions from Work Injury Recognition - Injuries resulting from the employee's own criminal acts, intoxication, drug use, self-harm, or suicide are explicitly excluded from being recognized as work injuries [20][22]. - For traffic accidents where the employee is not primarily at fault, recognition requires legal documentation from traffic management authorities or court rulings [24]. - Medical damages resulting from torts unrelated to work injuries or occupational diseases are not covered by work injury insurance funds [26]. Group 4: Labor Relationship Confirmation - The social insurance administrative department must confirm the labor relationship when processing work injury recognition applications [29]. - In cases of disputes regarding labor relationships, applicants are advised to seek resolution through arbitration or litigation [29]. - Employers involved in illegal subcontracting or outsourcing are held responsible for work injury insurance, ensuring better protection for affected workers [31].

Core Points - The Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security released opinions on the implementation of the Work Injury Insurance Regulations to better protect the legal rights of employees and employers [1] Group 1 - The opinions clarify that medical malpractice during the treatment of work-related injuries or occupational diseases does not affect the recognition of the original work injury or occupational disease [2] - Employees working from home as per company arrangements can have their work-related injuries recognized if there is sufficient evidence proving the injury occurred due to work reasons, regardless of being at home [2] - For traffic accidents occurring during commuting that are not primarily the employee's fault, the determination of "not primarily at fault" should rely on legal documents issued by traffic management authorities or effective court rulings [2]

Core Viewpoint - The Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security has issued new guidelines regarding the recognition of work-related injuries, expanding the definition of "work time" and "workplace" to include various scenarios such as commuting and remote work [1][2][3]. Group 1: Definition of Work Time - The recognition of "work time" should consider legally mandated hours, contractual agreements, and any time spent on tasks assigned by the employer, including overtime [1]. - The guidelines specify that commuting within a reasonable time and route between home and work is considered part of work time [3]. Group 2: Definition of Workplaces - "Workplace" is defined as areas related to the employee's job responsibilities, including locations where the employer can effectively manage work activities [2]. - The guidelines also include areas outside the primary workplace that are necessary for completing specific tasks [2]. Group 3: Causality and Work-Related Injuries - The determination of injuries as work-related must establish a causal link between the employee's duties and the injury sustained [2]. - Injuries occurring during reasonable breaks for basic physiological needs within a work context are also recognized [2]. Group 4: Remote Work Considerations - Employees working from home can have their injuries recognized as work-related if there is sufficient evidence that the injury occurred due to work tasks [4][5]. - Simple communications via modern technology do not qualify as work-related injuries [4]. Group 5: Labor Relations and Claims - The social insurance administrative department must confirm the employment relationship when processing injury claims, and disputes should be resolved through arbitration or litigation [5]. - Even in the absence of a formal employment relationship, claims can be made under specific circumstances, such as subcontracting violations [5]. Group 6: Adjustments to Benefits - Adjustments to disability allowances and care fees will be made based on the outcomes of labor capability assessments, while one-time disability compensation will not be adjusted [5]. Group 7: Implementation of Guidelines - The new guidelines will take effect immediately upon publication, superseding any previous inconsistent regulations [7].

Core Points - The Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security released opinions on the implementation of the Work Injury Insurance Regulations, addressing practical issues in work injury insurance to better protect the legal rights of employees and employers [4]. Group 1 - The opinions clarify that medical malpractice during the treatment of work-related injuries does not affect the original recognition of the work injury or occupational disease [4]. - It specifies that injuries sustained while working from home, with sufficient evidence proving the work-related nature of the injury, should not be affected by the fact that the employee was working from home [4]. - For traffic accidents occurring during commuting where the employee is not primarily at fault, the determination of "not primarily at fault" should rely on legal documents issued by traffic management authorities or effective court rulings [4].

Core Viewpoint - The case revolves around the determination of whether an employee's death during a company-organized team-building activity should be classified as a work-related injury, raising questions about responsibility and risk acceptance [1][4]. Group 1: Incident Overview - In March 2021, an employee named Li Chengguang participated in a tug-of-war competition organized by a partner construction company, which was deemed a company activity [2]. - After the competition, Li suddenly fell ill and died due to a heart condition, prompting his mother to apply for a work injury recognition [2][3]. Group 2: Legal Proceedings - The local human resources bureau recognized Li's death as a work-related injury based on the circumstances of the incident, but the real estate company contested this decision through administrative litigation [3][6]. - The court found that the tug-of-war event was directly related to the company's business objectives and that Li's participation was mandated by his employer, thus qualifying the incident as a work-related injury [5][6]. Group 3: Court's Rationale - The court emphasized that the activity was organized to enhance team cohesion and had a clear business connection, which justified its classification as an extension of work duties [5][10]. - The judge ruled that Li's participation during work hours and under employer direction did not constitute voluntary risk-taking, but rather a legitimate work-related activity [6][11]. Group 4: Implications for Labor Relations - The case highlights the importance of defining the boundaries between work-related injuries and personal risk, emphasizing the employer's responsibility for employee safety during work-related activities [10][11]. - The ruling reinforces the principle that employers should bear the risks associated with activities that are conducted for the benefit of the company, thereby balancing the rights and responsibilities of both parties in the labor relationship [10][11].

Core Points - The Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security clarified the requirements for work injury recognition, stating that an application must include a work injury recognition application form and provide details such as the time, location, cause of the accident, and the degree of employee injury [1][4] - Types of evidence that can be submitted include witness testimonies,现场照片 (on-site photos), and other forms of evidence materials [1]

Core Points - The case involves a labor dispute regarding whether a labor relationship was established during pre-job training and if an injury sustained during this period can be classified as a work-related injury [1][2] - The court ruled that a labor relationship existed between the employee and the restaurant, as the employee was engaged in training arranged by the employer, which was directly related to the restaurant's main business [2] - The court emphasized that if the pre-job training is necessary, employer-arranged, and the employee is under the employer's management, a labor relationship can be recognized [2] Summary by Sections - **Labor Relationship Establishment**: The court found that communication and arrangements for pre-job training indicated a mutual agreement to establish a labor relationship, despite the absence of a formal written contract [2] - **Injury Recognition**: The court highlighted that injuries occurring during employer-arranged training can be recognized as work-related injuries if a factual labor relationship exists [2][3] - **Next Steps**: Following the confirmation of the labor relationship, the case will proceed to work injury recognition and compensation negotiations [3]

Core Viewpoint - The court ruled that the injury sustained by the worker during the commute, despite leaving work early, qualifies as a work-related injury under the Workers' Compensation Insurance Regulations [1][2]. Group 1: Case Background - A labor dispatch company sent a worker, Wei, to perform security duties in Urumqi in October 2018. Wei was injured in a traffic accident while walking home after leaving work early on November 4, 2018 [1]. - The labor dispatch company argued that Wei's early departure violated company rules and should not be considered as part of the normal commute, thus contesting the work injury designation [1]. Group 2: Court's Ruling - The court upheld the decision that injuries occurring during the commute, even if the worker bears equal responsibility for the accident, should be recognized as work-related injuries [2]. - The court emphasized that while Wei's early departure was a violation of labor discipline, it did not reach the level of intentional wrongdoing that would negate the work injury classification [2]. Group 3: Legal Interpretation - The court's interpretation aligns with the Workers' Compensation Insurance Regulations, which state that injuries sustained during the commute, when not primarily the worker's fault, are eligible for work injury recognition [3]. - The ruling aims to ensure comprehensive protection under the work injury insurance system, acknowledging the risks workers face during their commutes [3].

Core Viewpoint - The Seoul Administrative Court ruled that the death of a man from acute alcohol poisoning after attending three consecutive company dinners in July 2022 should be classified as a work-related injury, overturning a previous decision by the Korean Workers' Compensation and Welfare Corporation [1][2] Group 1: Legal Context - The key legal issue revolves around whether the last dinner constituted a work-related event, with the deceased's family suing to overturn the corporation's refusal to pay compensation for bereavement and funeral expenses [2] - The corporation argued that the last dinner was of a private nature and that the costs were borne by individuals, thus not meeting the criteria for a formal company event [2] Group 2: Court's Rationale - The court determined that the dinner had a clear work-related context, as the deceased was about to undertake a six-month overseas assignment and the dinner involved two new foreign employees who would assist him in that role [2] - The court noted that the high cost of the dinner, exceeding 1 million Korean Won (approximately 5,192 RMB), was not typical for a private gathering, further supporting the classification of the event as work-related [2]

Group 1 - The article highlights a tragic case of a 34-year-old outsourced worker who suffered a sudden brain hemorrhage and passed away, raising concerns about workplace health and safety [1] - It emphasizes that the "Work Injury Insurance Regulations" classify sudden death from illness during work hours as a work-related injury, suggesting the company should assist the deceased's family in applying for recognition [1] - The article points out that cases of sudden death among technical workers are common, linking factors like overwork and late-night work to health risks such as brain hemorrhages [2] Group 2 - The article advises IT professionals to be cautious about their health, stressing that work is never-ending and that life is irreplaceable [2] - It suggests that companies should promote a healthier work-life balance to prevent such tragic incidents in the future [2]