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 March 15, 1998, the Plaintiff’s husband’s husband (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s husband”) received medical care on September 10, 2002 due to an occupational accident, such as cerebral typosis, left-hand urine, nephal typosis, chronic nephymosis, right-hand macy, and marosis.
After January 31, 2005, the Deceased re-medical care was provided until December 10, 2008 as additional injury and disease, such as “neutronic neutism, pactine, chronological pressure, and luminous re-treatment.”
(hereinafter referred to as “existing approved injury and disease” is added to all the injury and disease approved by the Deceased due to occupational accidents.
On January 22, 2011, the Deceased was hospitalized at the hospital due to the fluoral dysium, the brusium, the brusium, and the brusium.
On January 23, 2011, the Deceased was diagnosed in the heart color through the examination of the heart and the heart efficacy around 14:00.
The Deceased, who received treatment of crypical cryposis on the same day, was in a stable state of blood pressure on January 27, 201. However, on January 29, 2011, the crypary crypical cryposis increased again, high heat, etc. occurred, and the crypary cryprym was diagnosed and received treatment on January 30, 201.
However, on February 2, 2011, the deceased was unable to recover and died of “infection by cause”, the preceding death, and “infection by blood,” the direct death.
C. The Plaintiff claimed for the payment of bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses to the Defendant, but on April 7, 201, the Defendant rejected the payment of bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses on the ground that the deceased’s death does not constitute occupational accidents.
The plaintiff filed a request for an examination to the defendant, but was dismissed on November 28, 201.
The Plaintiff again claimed the payment of bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses to the Defendant, but the Defendant rejected the payment of bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses on March 20, 2012.
(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful.