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. The deceased B suffered from occupational accidents on October 19, 190 while serving in C companies, and was diagnosed as “cerebralop, brain cerebraloptysis (the two governments of the two sides), brain-resistant cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral typhism (the two governments of the two sides), and obtained approval for medical care for the above injury.
B. After receiving medical care until December 22, 1991, the Deceased received a disability pension according to the judgment of class 2 and class 5 of the disability grade.
C. The Deceased was sent to an emergency room on January 3, 2014, but was already dead.
On February 26, 2014, the Plaintiff, who was the deceased, claimed bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses to the Defendant. However, on the ground that there is no proximate causal relation between the deceased’s work and the death, the Defendant taken measures to pay bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses against the Plaintiff.
E. Around April 29, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a petition for review against the Defendant against the instant disposition, but was dismissed on or around July 2014. A petition for review was filed with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee around September 11, 2014, but was dismissed on November 16, 2014.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 3, and 5 evidence (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was diagnosed on October 19, 1990, on the part of her head due to an occupational accident, such as cerebral typhosis, cerebral typhism, and liveration. Since the death was caused by the liveration of her head due to the liveration, there was a proximate causal relation between the deceased’s work and the death, the Defendant’s disposition of this case on a different premise is unlawful.
B. The Deceased was 58 years of age at the time of his death as a DNA male, such as the medical treatment and the outbreak.
Since 1993, the Deceased has started five times in a year, and it was turned out on December 1, 201.