beta
(영문) 서울행정법원 2020.06.19 2019구합56012

유족급여및장의비부지급처분취소

Text

On June 5, 2018, the defendant revoked the disposition of bereaved family's benefits and funeral site expenses against the plaintiff.

The costs of lawsuit.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 28, 1997, the Plaintiff’s spouse deceased B (CB, hereinafter “the deceased”) entered the Korea hydroelectric Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea hydroelectric Energy”) and served as the Korea Headquarters Engineering Center’s mooring Design Team, the Gyeyang Design Team, and the Vice Minister. < Amended by Act No. 13568, Jan. 15, 2016>

사망의 원인 ㈏, ㈐, ㈑에는 ㈎와 직접 의학적 인과관계가 명확한 것만을 적습니다.

㈎ 직접사인 부정맥 ㈏ ㈎의 원인 - ㈐ ㈏의 원인 - ㈑ ㈐의 원인 - ㈎부터 ㈑까지와 관계없는 그밖의 신체상황 -

B. On October 4, 2017, the Deceased was killed on the same day as 13:20 on the same day, while driving a car at the G center located in Seo-gu, Gwangju, Seo-gu, to the D Headquarters located in the Seoul metropolitan city.

The entry of the cause of death in the deceased’s death report is as follows and the autopsy was not carried out.

C. On March 16, 2018, the Plaintiff asserted that the death of the deceased constituted an occupational accident, and filed an application for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses to the Defendant.

On June 5, 2018, the Defendant rendered a decision on site pay (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff according to the result of the judgment by the Occupational Disease Determination Committee that “no illegal connection which caused the death of the deceased shall be recognized as an occupational disease.”

On August 3, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee on August 3, 2018, but the said Committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for reexamination on November 20, 2018.

(In fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion lies in the work and death, misunderstanding of the existence of occupational occupational or stress, which is a premise for recognition of occupational accidents, and the existing medical history and treatment details of the Deceased.