유족급여및장의비부지급처분취소
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is the spouse of the deceased B (hereinafter “the deceased”).
B. On January 1, 2017, the Deceased was employed in C and was in charge of the duties of excavating articles.
C. On April 7, 2017, at around 12:10, the Deceased complained of the respiratory distress and chests, who were engaged in drilling operations at the D New Construction Site of Sejong Special Self-Governing City, and reported to 119 by neighboring workers. At around 13:23 on the same day as the 119 emergency vehicle, the Deceased died on around 14:45 on the same day while he/she was receiving treatment at the E hospital emergency room.
망인의 사망원인은 급성심근경색으로 인한 심장성 쇽이었다. 라.
On April 12, 2018, the Plaintiff claimed that the death of the deceased constitutes occupational accidents under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and that the bereaved family’s benefits and funeral expenses were paid to the Defendant.
E. On May 13, 2019, the Defendant rendered a decision on the bereaved family’s benefits and funeral site non-assignment (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the deceased did not have any sudden and difficult occurrence or sudden change in business environment related to his duties within 24 hours prior to the present symptoms, and did not meet the short-term and chronic requirements as prescribed by the Ministry of Employment and Labor’s public notice, and there is no reason to increase the deceased’s death, and thus the cause of death is not recognized as an occupational disease” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
F. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for review following the procedure of the request for review, but was dismissed on December 17, 2019.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap’s entries in Gap’s 1 through 3, 14 through 16, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was carried out as a result of the drilling (routing the ground and rupture breaking) operations within 30 meters above the ground at the time. However, physical skin and mental stress were increased due to exposure to harmful environments, such as duplicating and dust, noise, vibration, etc., conducted in an enclosed work space under the ground, and at the time, the Deceased remains in winter.