유족급여및장의비부지급처분취소
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. Survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on May 18, 2015.
1. The reasons why the court has stated this part of the disposition are the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the reasons why the court has stated this part as follows. Thus, this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Part 5 of the Second Ground "0:05" shall be "0:45," and Part 9 shall be "9 September 24, 2015," " May 18, 2015."
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion and the grounds for this part of the relevant statutes are as follows, and the relevant part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (from No. 3 to No. 10, and No. 9 to No. 11) is the same with that of the relevant part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and the main text of
The 10th 11th am "1. brain cerebrovascular disease or heart disease", the 12th am "workers" in the 12th am "the following", "the 13th am deleted "the amthe am the am the am the am the am the am the am the am the am the am the am the am the am the am the am the am the am the am the am the am the am the am the am the am the am the am the am the am the am the am the am the am the am the am the am the am the am the
The 10th head of the 27th place is "matters necessary for determining whether or not to recognize a cerebrovascular disease or heart disease or an occupational disease of the flasium disease" (Public Notice of the Ministry of Employment and Labor No. 2013-32).
B. The reasons for this part of the facts of recognition are as follows, and the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (from No. 12 to No. 6) is the same as that of the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (from No. 3, No. 12 to No. 13). Thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the
The term "full-time researcher" in Part 14 of the third part shall be appointed as "Appointed researcher".
No. 3.