유족보상금부지급처분취소
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition of the following contents among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance. Therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420
(1) The 4th page "on the date of death" shall be deleted.
(2) On face 12, the following shall be added to Chapter 7:
As a result of the fact-finding on the medical record appraisal of the party, in the case of the deceased, all of the leuk in the case of the deceased are related to the occurrence and aggravation of the waste collection.
It is the major condition that the saccination itself aggravated infectious diseases such as pulmonary pulmonary dynasty is the saccination.
Since it is the cause, it may be impossible to proceed with infection because it is a patient suffering from leukosis.
However, since overwork, stress may have a significant impact on the outbreak and progress of infection, the plaintiff seems to have influenced both the occurrence and progress of infection.
There is no objective method to verify that one of the overwork, stress, and acute leukosis itself had a greater impact on the degradation of immunity, so it is a problem that cannot be known.
In the case of the deceased, it is difficult to accurately determine when the pulmonary symptoms occurred, but the hospitalization at the hospital was July 5, 2013, and the symptoms such as the duplicating, bathing, and heating, etc. in the medical record, were prior to the lapse of one month in the internal source.
In the case of the deceased, the deceased cannot be aware of the ex post facto relationship between waste and the outbreak of lebal diseases.
③ From 12th to 11th “A” to 12th “A” to 11th “A” are as follows: “The results of the fact-finding on the Samsung Seoul Hospital, the results of the fact-finding on the head of the first instance Seoul Hospital, the results of the fact-finding on the head of the first instance Seoul Hospital, and the results of the fact-finding on the head of the first instance Seoul Hospital.”
2. The plaintiff's claim is reasonable.