유족급여및장의비부지급처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. The deceased B (Cre, hereinafter “the deceased”) is a person working as a gas station at the E stations located in Daejeon Jung-gu, Daejeon (hereinafter “instant gas station”). The deceased’s working hours are from 06:30 to 09:00, and from 17:30 to 23:00.
B. Around 06:20 on September 2, 2016, the Deceased was driving an Ortoba and worked as a gas station in the instant case, and a collision occurred with the vehicle located on the opposite side of the road (four-lane between the four-lanes) while crossinging the central line in the red signal and driving it as a oil station in the instant case (hereinafter “instant accident”).
On the other hand, the other party's vehicle was driven at a speed exceeding 83 km per hour in excess of the speed limit (60 km per hour) of green signal at the time.
C. On September 2, 2016, the Deceased was escorted to the Chungcheongnamnam University Hospital on September 2, 2016, but died due to the instant accident, and the Plaintiff, the spouse of the Deceased, asserted that the death of the Deceased constitutes an occupational accident, and claimed for the payment of bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses.
On August 30, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition on the bereaved family’s benefits and funeral expense (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “The instant accident cannot be deemed an accident under the control and management of the business owner, given that it was possible for the deceased to work on several routes or means, and that it was not the work on the part of the business owner’s direction differently from the usual place on the day of the instant accident. Therefore, the causal relation between the deceased’s work and the death cannot be recognized.”
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 7, 8, Eul evidence 2 and 5, witness F's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Constitutional Court held that the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 14933, Oct. 24, 2017) (amended by Act No. 14934, Sept. 29, 2016; hereinafter “former Industrial Accident Insurance Act”).