Guide to Recognition Criteria and Compensation for Work-Related Accidents

Based on 30 consultation cases · Updated October 4, 2026 · Translated from the Korean original.

For an accident to be recognized as work-related, there must be a substantial causal relationship between the work and the injury, illness, disability, or death. The causal relationship does not have to be conclusively established on medical grounds. Commuting accidents and the worsening of pre-existing illnesses must be considered in light of the law in force at the time of the accident and the specific circumstances.

People involved → Worker → Employer → A worker suffers injury, illness, disability, or death linked to work or a commute → Did the harm arise from work, work duties, or a commute? → Yes — Articles 37 and 5, subparagraph 1 → No → Work-related status is not shown on the current facts → Can a substantial work-harm link be supported by the circumstances? → Yes → Was it a commute by ordinary route and method under the law at the time? → Yes — Article 37, paragraph 1, subparagraph 3 → May be recognized as work-related → No — assess the work-duty connection → Check law at accident date, route, and method → Apply the law in force at the time; check the actual commuting route and method → Check evidence and illness progression → Medical proof need not be conclusive; consider health, illness course, treatment, and worsening beyond natural progression → Check worker status and damages separately →…

Key points

A work-related accident means an injury, illness, disability, or death arising from work while performing work duties, and requires a substantial causal relationship between the work and the accident (Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Article 37 and Article 5, subparagraph 1 (산업재해보상보험법 제37조, 제5조 제1호)).
The causal relationship does not have to be conclusively established on medical or natural-scientific grounds; it may be inferred from various circumstances, including the person’s health, how the illness developed, and the course of treatment (cases 9, 10, and 25).
For commuting accidents, whether the employer exercised control and management was important under the former law discussed in the cases. Since January 1, 2018, however, accidents occurring while commuting by the ordinary route and method have also been classified as work-related accidents (Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Article 37, paragraph 1, subparagraph 3 (산업재해보상보험법 제37조 제1항 제3호)).
A pre-existing illness may still qualify as work-related if a work-related accident or excessive work demands cause it to worsen beyond the rate of natural progression or cause symptoms to manifest (cases 10 and 25).
If a mental illness is worsened by work-related stress and the person dies by suicide while their capacity for normal judgment is significantly impaired, a substantial causal relationship between the work and death may be recognized (cases 11 and 18).
Whether someone qualifies as a worker is not determined solely by the name of the contract. The substance of the work may be examined, including direction and supervision, restrictions on working hours and location, the nature of the remuneration, and exclusivity (cases 7 and 17).
A prosthesis damaged for work-related reasons may qualify as an injury eligible for medical care benefits. Where a work-related injury worsens an existing disability, the assessment is not determined solely by whether that pre-existing disability arose from a work-related accident (cases 14 and 21).
Recognition of a work-related accident and an employer’s or other party’s liability for damages are separate issues. In an accident involving a dispatched worker, a lower-court case held that the dispatching employer may also be liable for damages if the user employer or another relevant party was negligent (case 23).

Frequently asked questions

Q. Can an accident be recognized as work-related even if it happens while I am commuting to work in my own car by my usual route?

The amended law that took effect on January 1, 2018, as discussed in the case, classified accidents occurring while commuting by the ordinary route and method as commuting-related accidents. However, the law in force at the time of the accident, the actual route and method of travel, and the connection between the work and the accident must be examined.

Case 1, Case 4, Case 5, Case 8

Q. Must I conclusively prove medically that my work caused my illness to have it recognized as work-related?

It does not have to be conclusively proven on medical or natural-scientific grounds. The claim may also be considered proven where a substantial causal relationship can be inferred from various circumstances, including the person’s health when they began working, how the illness developed, the nature of the illness, and the course of treatment.

Case 9, Case 10, Case 25

Q. Can my illness qualify as work-related if I already had it and it got worse because of my work?

Even if you had a pre-existing illness, it may qualify as a work-related accident if an accident connected with your work or the demands of your job worsened it beyond the rate of natural progression or caused symptoms to manifest. The condition of the pre-existing illness, the nature of the work, and how the condition worsened should all be considered.

Case 10, Case 25

Q. Can a suicide following depression caused by work-related stress be recognized as work-related?

A substantial causal relationship between the work and the death may be recognized if work-related stress worsened depression and the person died by suicide while their capacity for normal perception and choice of action, or their mental self-control, was significantly impaired. One case held that this conclusion would not change merely because personal vulnerability contributed to the outcome or because there were no psychotic symptoms immediately before the suicide.

Case 11, Case 18

Q. Can quick-service delivery drivers or insurance solicitors qualify as workers under workers’ compensation insurance?

A person may be recognized as a worker depending on the substance of their work. The specific circumstances must be considered, including direction and supervision of the work, restrictions on working hours and location, the nature of the remuneration, and whether the work was exclusive. The cases found that quick-service delivery drivers and insurance solicitors selling insurance by phone could qualify as workers.

Case 7, Case 17

Q. Can I receive medical care benefits if my prosthetic leg was damaged in a fall at work?

One case held that a prosthesis damaged for work-related reasons falls within the injuries to a worker eligible for medical care benefits, taking into account that a prosthesis functionally, physically, and practically replaces a leg. Whether benefits are actually available depends on the specific circumstances, including whether the accident occurred for work-related reasons.

Case 21

Q. What happens if a work-related injury worsens a pre-existing disability in the same part of my body?

The precedent discussed in the case interpreted the relevant provision as covering situations where a work-related injury worsened the degree of a disability in the same part of the body, regardless of whether the pre-existing disability resulted from a work-related accident. The scope and availability of disability benefits depend on the specific disability and the relevant provisions.

Case 14

Q. Can I continue receiving medical care benefits if I am being treated only to prevent my symptoms from getting worse?

The precedent discussed in the case held that grounds for concluding treatment may exist where treatment is needed only to prevent fixed symptoms from worsening, rather than to improve the underlying condition. Whether treatment is intended to improve the symptoms and whether the symptoms have stabilized may be at issue.

Case 24

Q. If a dispatched worker is injured and the user employer was negligent, must the dispatching employer also pay damages?

A lower-court decision discussed in the case held that a dispatching employer may be liable for damages even without direct negligence of its own if the user employer or another relevant party was negligent. This was the ruling in that particular case; actual liability depends on the circumstances of the accident and the status and fault of each party.

Case 23

Relevant laws

Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Article 5, subparagraph 1 (산업재해보상보험법 제5조 제1호)
Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Article 5, subparagraph 4 (산업재해보상보험법 제5조 제4호)
Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Article 5, subparagraph 8 (산업재해보상보험법 제5조 제8호)
Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Article 6 (산업재해보상보험법 제6조)
Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Article 37 (산업재해보상보험법 제37조)
Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Article 40 (산업재해보상보험법 제40조)
Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Article 51 (산업재해보상보험법 제51조)
Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Article 57 (산업재해보상보험법 제57조)
Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Article 77 (산업재해보상보험법 제77조)
Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Article 29 (산업재해보상보험법 시행령 제29조)
Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Article 36, subparagraph 2 (산업재해보상보험법 시행령 제36조 제2호)
Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Article 53, paragraph 4 (산업재해보상보험법 시행령 제53조 제4항)
Occupational Safety and Health Act on the Prevention of Industrial Accidents, Article 5 (산업재해예방에 관한 산업안전보건법 제5조)
Act on the Protection, etc. of Dispatched Workers, Article 34 (파견근로자보호 등에 관한 법률 제34조)
Act on the Protection, etc. of Dispatched Workers, Article 35, paragraph 2 (파견근로자보호 등에 관한 법률 제35조 제2항)

Watch out for

The assessment of a commuting accident may vary depending on the law in force when the accident occurred. Do not apply a decision under former law in a past case directly to a current accident.
Whether an accident is work-related is determined by considering the causal relationship between the work and the accident or illness, together with the specific facts. The outcome in a case does not necessarily apply in the same way to every similar accident.
Eligibility for workers’ compensation benefits and liability for damages on the part of an employer or a third party are separate issues and should be considered separately.

Source cases

This guide was compiled by AI from the following Korea Legal Aid Corporation consultation cases (in Korean).

This guide is general legal information about Korean law, not legal advice for your situation. For a specific case, consult a lawyer or the Korea Legal Aid Corporation (call 132 in Korea).