Court Rules "Driving at Quarry Also Counts as Dust Work... Compensation for Pneumoconiosis Granted"

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] The court has ruled that compensation for industrial accident consolation payments should be granted even in cases where a person died of pneumoconiosis while working in driving and machinery operation tasks at a quarry.

According to the legal community on the 30th, the Seoul Administrative Court, Administrative Division 7 (Chief Judge Jeong Sanggyu) recently ruled in favor of the plaintiff in the first trial of the lawsuit filed by the family of Mr. A against the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service for the cancellation of the denial of consolation payments to the bereaved family.

Previously, Mr. A had driven vehicles at a quarry for several years since 1983, loading and unloading stone materials and operating equipment that crushed quarried stones. From 1990, he worked as an apartment security guard, was diagnosed with pneumoconiosis in 2002, and passed away in 2019.

The family of Mr. A claimed compensation for pneumoconiosis-related industrial accident consolation payments under the Pneumoconiosis Prevention Act from the Service, but the Service refused, stating, "There is no reason to consider that the deceased was engaged in dust-related work while working as a driver and mechanic."

The family filed an administrative lawsuit, and the first trial ruled in favor of the family.

The court stated, based on the Enforcement Decree of the Pneumoconiosis Prevention Act, that "it is reasonable to consider that the deceased was engaged in dust-related work." Furthermore, the fact that Mr. A's occupation was recorded as driver and mechanic alone does not allow a definitive conclusion that he was not actually engaged in dust-related work.

The Enforcement Decree of the Pneumoconiosis Prevention Act defines dust-related work as "loading or unloading soil, rock, or minerals onto or from vehicles, and other work handling mineral dust in places where mineral dust is generated."

Since the Service did not appeal, this ruling has been finalized as is.