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 November 5, 2005, on the construction site, the deceased’s spouse B (hereinafter “the deceased”) suffered from scarke and scarke damage due to a fall accident, and the treatment was completed on March 27, 2008. On March 27, 2008, the disability pension under class 1 subparag. 8 (the two legs as a patient with the lower part of the body are permanently unable to be used on a permanent basis) was received. On October 23, 2012, the deceased at his home around 03:11.
B. The Plaintiff sustained a long-term life due to the fall accident and died by a merger certificate. On April 2015, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to pay bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses.
C. On July 21, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision on the bereaved family’s benefits and funeral expenses (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the deceased did not have an opinion to presume the cause of death of the deceased, and thus the causal relationship between the existing occupational accident and the death of the deceased is not recognized.”
The Plaintiff filed a request for examination against the Defendant on December 14, 2015, but received a decision of dismissal on December 14, 2015. The Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, but received a decision of dismissal on May 20, 2016.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 through 4, 10, 11, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. On November 5, 2005, the Plaintiff asserted that he was unable to move for about seven (7) years after he was injured by an occupational accident. As such, the death of the deceased was caused by the desire and other mergers that occurred while living in an invasion for a long time. As such, there is a proximate causal relation with his duties.
Unlike this, the instant disposition that deemed that there is no proximate causal relation is unlawful.
(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.
C. Determination 1 is based on Article 5 Subparag. 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.