beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.05.24 2015누65331

유족급여및장의비부지급처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows: (a) the “58 hours” of the first instance judgment under the third page of the first instance judgment shall be “60.8 hours”; (b) the fifth to sixth, the fifth to sixth, as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for each height under the fifth and sixth paragraph (2) above; and (c) the same shall apply in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts 2: (a) During the twelve weeks prior to the instant accident, the deceased worked for an average of 60.8 hours and 30 minutes a week during 12 weeks prior to the instant accident; (b) during the said twelve weeks, the deceased worked for more than 67 hours and 30 minutes a week; (c) however, the deceased’s work patterns and coverage together, and the deceased worked for more than 5 days prior to the instant accident and 8 days before the instant accident occurred; and (d) during the said three days and 4 days prior to the instant accident, the time coverage was conducted within three hours prior to the instant accident; (d) medical record appraisal increases the outbreak of the heart; (e) while the deceased’s heart suspension was confirmed to have been occurred after her home, the deceased’s duty was conducted to the extent that there is a strong negative opinion on the possibility that the cause of the heart suspension, such as drilling, might be divided into the causes of the instant accident, compared to those on the day preceding the instant accident or other work to gather news.

In comparison with the work of the deceased, the intensity of the work or the working environment is not considered to have been rapidly changed so as to cause extreme physical burdens.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.