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 1, 2005, Nonparty B (CB; hereinafter “the deceased”) joined the E, an incorporated association located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “Nonindicted Corporation”) and worked as the head of the Technology Center’s functional assessment team.
B. At around 13:00 on March 24, 2013, the Deceased visited the weekend farm of a terroat located in the Hanam-si F, and lost consciousness and consciousness of her chest, and was sent to the Gangwon-do National University Hospital, but died.
In the body autopsy report of the deceased, the private person is indicated as “emergency funeral services”.
C. On July 24, 2013, the Plaintiff, the deceased’s spouse, claimed for survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses to the Defendant, but the Defendant rendered a decision on the site payment on September 12, 2013 on the following grounds:
(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition.” In full view of the following: (a) In the case of the deceased, in view of the fact that a disaster occurred during a private act; (b) the cause of the accurate death is unknown; (c) there was no unexpected event or emergency that could not be predicted immediately before the disaster occurred; (d) there was no rapid increase in business hours or changes in the business environment; (b) there was no objective evidence to recognize that the disaster occurred with mental and physical disability or stress due to the duties before the disaster occurred; (c) there was no existing symptoms, and (d) the deceased’s death was deliberated by the Occupational Disease Determination Committee that it is not related to the duties due to the natural deterioration of existing evidence; and (d) the deceased’s death is not recognized as related to the duties of the deceased.
D. On December 12, 2013, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a request for reexamination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee on December 12, 2013, but was dismissed on February 6, 2014.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 2, 3, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, 9, Eul evidence 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The case.