Investigating non-serious industrial accidents: the December 2026 application rule and report publication
An accident need not be fatal to enter the investigation scope
The Occupational Safety and Health Act expands cause investigations beyond serious industrial accidents to certain accidents causing injury or occupational illness. Act No. 21374 was promulgated on 2026-02-19. Article 3(2) of its Addenda applies the amendments to Articles 49 and 56(1)2 to industrial accidents occurring on or after 2026-12-01. The accident date therefore needs to be read separately from commencement of the amended provisions.
MOEL Notice No. 2026-38 sets out detailed coverage and the investigation and reporting procedures. Injuries or occupational illnesses involving fire or explosion, collapse, falls, asphyxiation or poisoning, chemical releases or heat-wave work require consideration of severity and the notice’s conditions. This does not make every minor injury an automatic investigation.
Investigation coverage, improvement-plan coverage and publication of an investigation report are separate decisions. Treating the Decree’s condition of at least 2 accidents within 1 year as a universal investigation threshold could overlook a first accident causing severe harm or simultaneous injuries.
Before and after: coverage and technical causes
Previously, Article 56 provided for investigations when a serious industrial accident occurred, to identify its causes and develop preventive measures. The amended Act lists serious accidents and certain other industrial accidents separately, permits a separate cause investigation by KOSHA or relevant experts, and establishes provisions for preparation and publication of reports.
Under Article 4 of the notice, MOEL examines whether an accident arose from violations of safety and health legislation. Under Article 5, KOSHA or relevant experts examine technical and structural causes and develop recurrence-prevention measures regardless of whether a statutory duty existed. The questions addressed can differ even when the accident is the same.
A prevention recommendation in a report is therefore not a determination of a legal violation or a criminal judgment. Findings about work methods, equipment and management systems must be distinguished from investigative allegations. Article 7 also requires the report to state that its contents are independent of investigative findings concerning legal violations.
| Basis | Previously | Amended |
|---|---|---|
| Act Article 56 | Cause investigation following a serious accident | Separates serious accidents and certain other industrial accidents |
| Act Article 56(2) and (3) | No corresponding separate-investigation and powers provisions | Basis for separate investigation, entry, interviews and requests for documents |
| Act Article 56-2 | No corresponding report preparation/publication article | New reporting, publication and protected-information provisions |
Read commencement and application in separate columns
The general commencement date of Act No. 21374 is 2026-06-01. Decree No. 36540 was promulgated on 2026-07-28; its Articles 49 item 3-2 and 50(2) took effect on promulgation. Notice No. 2026-38 was issued on 2026-05-29 and took effect on 2026-06-01. Applying the expansion to every past accident on the strength of these dates alone would omit the Act’s application clause.
For the expansion to industrial accidents that are not serious accidents, the additional condition is occurrence on or after 2026-12-01. The dates an investigation starts, documents are submitted or a report is received do not replace the accident date. Separate the occurrence dates when reviewing successive events at an establishment.
Article 3(1) of the Act’s Addenda applies Article 56, other than Article 56(1)2, and Article 56-2 to serious accidents occurring after commencement. Existing serious-accident investigations and the newly expanded scope must not be assigned a single application date. Figure 1 places commencement and accident-date conditions side by side.
Act No. 21374, Addenda Article 3(2) — Korean legal text
제49조 및 제56조제1항제2호의 개정규정은 2026년 12월 1일 이후 발생하는 산업재해부터 적용한다.- 1 Act No. 21374General commencement: 2026-06-01read the relevant provision and addenda together rather than using only the heading date.
- 2 Decree No. 36540Relevant Articles 49 and 50 amendments: 2026-07-28distinguish commencement of diagnosis and improvement-plan provisions from the Act’s accident-date condition.
- 3 Act Addenda Article 3(2)Expansion: accidents on or after 2026-12-01Identify the incident date separately from the investigation or report date.
- 4 Notice 2026-38Read the investigation scope and procedure togethercheck the type and severity of the accident against the expanded investigation scope.
- 5 Other provisionsKeep risk-assessment and disclosure dates separatedisclosure and fine provisions have their own commencement dates.
The investigation categories in the notice
Article 3(1)2 of the notice sets out four alternatives where the listed accident types cause injury or occupational illness: a same-type accident at the establishment within the preceding 1 year; a critical physiological condition or major injury; simultaneous injuries to at least 2 people falling short of a serious accident; or heat stroke with raised core temperature arising from heat-wave work. The provision also requires the Minister to consider cause investigation necessary.
A critical condition is not simply a long treatment period. The text lists unconsciousness, absence of breathing, cardiac arrest, amputation, comparable physiological critical conditions or major injuries. Simultaneous injuries, conversely, cannot be assessed only by whether one person is critically ill. The accident type and extent of harm need to be recorded separately.
Serious accidents under Article 3(1)1 and other accidents considered to require investigation under item 3 are separate categories. The alternatives in item 2 must not become a closed list for every investigation. Immediate rescue and reporting are linked to the existing response procedure; the task here is to distinguish coverage and the applicable provisions.
Do not combine the two frequency tests
Under Article 50(2) of the Decree, the improvement-plan category concerns establishments where failure to implement necessary safety or health measures resulted in at least 2 industrial accidents of the kind specified in Act Article 56(1)2 within 1 year. The wording is not a count alone. It requires consideration of the omitted measures, their relationship to the relevant accidents, the period and the frequency.
The same-type-accident condition within the preceding 1 year in Article 3 of the notice concerns investigation coverage. Its purpose and wording differ from the Decree’s improvement-plan condition. Concluding that one injury cannot be investigated, or that any two accidents meet the same improvement-plan condition, removes part of the applicable test. Act Article 49 permits the Minister to order preparation and implementation of a plan where an integrated set of improvements is considered necessary. Reaching the accident count does not itself produce an automatic order.
Comparing the applicable conditions, one person becoming critically ill after a chemical release can be assessed against the critical-condition category. A fall injuring 2 people simultaneously calls for the simultaneous-injury category and a separate serious-accident assessment. The facts and each provision’s conditions govern the actual decision. Figure 2 separates investigation, improvement-plan and publication decisions.
Enforcement Decree Article 50(2), establishment criteria — Korean legal text
사업주가 필요한 안전조치 또는 보건조치를 이행하지 않아 법 제56조제1항제2호에 따른 산업재해가 최근 1년 이내에 2회 이상 발생한 사업장- 1 Cause investigationAccident type, severity and scope under the noticeFor non-major accidents too, check whether the type and severity fall within the expanded investigation scope.
- 2 Twice within 1 yearFailure to implement necessary safety or health measures, and other conditionsApply the twice-in-one-year condition within the scope of the provision that sets it.
- 3 Improvement planScope under Act Article 49 and Decree Article 50distinguish the establishment criteria and basis for an order from investigation coverage.
- 4 Investigation reportCircumstances, causes and prevention recommendationsdistinguish circumstances and prevention recommendations from a final criminal judgment.
- 5 PublicationIndictment rule, exceptions and protected informationcheck the separate rules on timing and information excluded from disclosure.
Investigation material and comments on a report
KOSHA or relevant experts may request workplace access, interviews and documents needed for the investigation. Article 6 prohibits arbitrary alteration of the causative machinery, tools or site conditions, manipulation of records or data, and distortion of witness or other statements. Distinguish material showing conditions at the time from records of subsequent improvements so that circumstances and remedial measures remain separate.
The investigation report includes the establishment overview, accident circumstances, causes and recommendations to prevent similar accidents. It is prepared by KOSHA or relevant experts and is not the same document as an employer’s own accident report. The employer receives notice of future publication and the procedure for comments concerning matters such as business secrets.
An employer receiving the report for publication may submit comments on information that should remain confidential within 10 days of receipt, using Annexed Form 3 of the notice. An extension of up to 10 days is possible for unavoidable circumstances; this is not an automatic 20-day period. Reports on which the employer submits comments are referred to the publication review committee.
Publication and protected information
Act Article 56-2 generally requires publication after indictment, with exceptions such as cases not subject to investigation or trial. Rule Article 71-2 identifies closure of a preliminary inquiry or a decision not to prosecute. Article 8 of the notice connects notification, sending the report, comments and review with monthly publication through channels such as the MOEL and KOSHA websites.
The monthly publication cycle differs from an individual employer’s comment period. It does not guarantee publication at the end of the accident month or defer every report until a judgment becomes final. The case status, including indictment, and the report procedure must be considered together.
Excluding protected information differs from seeking to withhold an entire report. The notice generally excludes such information and requires efforts to minimise it where essential to identifying causes. Identifying the particular information and the grounds for withholding it is central to the comment process.
Boundaries that are easily confused
A small establishment is not, by that fact alone, outside these cause-investigation provisions. The size threshold under the Serious Accidents Punishment Act, the serious-accident definition under the Occupational Safety and Health Act and investigation coverage under this notice are different concepts. Applicability depends on the relevant legislation and accident conditions.
A prevention recommendation in a report is not a work permit or approval to lift a stop-work order. Measures and approvals required to resume work remain separate while investigation and publication proceed. The linked serious-accident response guidance covers the sequence of immediate actions.
Prohibition on site interference and obstruction
The prohibition on interfering with the site or obstructing investigation under Act Article 56(5) and notice Article 6 is distinct from commenting on publication. A right to seek confidentiality does not permit manipulation of evidence or obstruction of access, interviews or document requests.
Act Article 170 item 2 provides for imprisonment of up to 1 year or a fine of up to KRW 10 million for a violation of Article 56(5) involving interference with the accident site or obstruction of a cause investigation by the Minister, KOSHA or relevant experts. The occurrence of an accident or inclusion of a recommendation in a report does not by itself trigger this penalty.