유족급여및장의비부지급처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On January 14, 1995, B, the Plaintiff’s spouse, was diagnosed as brain flaging on the left side, right flaging, and verbal disability warning (hereinafter “the first injury and disease in this case”) while working for C Co., Ltd., and received medical care benefits by being recognized as an occupational accident under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act from the Defendant. After completion of medical care on January 10, 1998, B was recognized as class 3 of the disability grade.
B. B, on June 3, 2015, upon the occurrence of cerebrovascular (hereinafter “the Second Injury Disease”) and being treated at a hospital, died on September 25, 2015. On the written death, the person directly killed in the written death was “sacrife due to safafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafa
C. Around November 2015, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses on the ground that the death of the deceased B (hereinafter “the deceased”) was an occupational accident. However, on January 12, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition of survivors’ benefits and funeral funeral expenses (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that there was no proximate causal relation with the occupational accident.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 5, 10, 18, Eul's 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the first injury and disease in the instant case occurred directly due to the Plaintiff’s direct cause, or the first injury and disease in the instant case occurred due to the drugs taken by the Deceased in order to prevent the recurrence of the said drugs, and the Deceased died in the treatment process.
Therefore, since there is a proximate causal relation between the first superior branch of this case and the death of the deceased and the second superior branch of this case, which is occupational accident, the defendant's disposition of this case on a different premise is unlawful.
B. On April 14, 2013, the Deceased’s diagnosis and treatment of 1 mother-gymopic disease.