유족급여및장의비부지급처분취소
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. On May 17, 2018, the amount of bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff.
1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the disposition are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion;
(b) relevant legislation;
C. The reasoning for this court’s explanation on each of the above parts is as follows: (a) the phrase “before amendment by the Ministry of Employment and Labor No. 2014-117” of the first instance judgment’s 16th two pages (excluding the letter box, excluding the letter box) shall be read as “before amendment by the Ministry of Employment and Labor No. 2017-117 of the Ministry of Employment and Labor’s public notice”; and (b) the corresponding part of the first instance judgment except for addition of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes as indicated in the separate sheet, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act; and
Judgment
1) The term “occupational accident” under Article 5 subparag. 1 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 14933, Oct. 24, 2017) refers to a disease caused by a worker’s occupational injury while performing his/her duties. Thus, there is a causal relationship between the disease caused by occupational death and the disease caused by occupational death. However, even if the main cause of the disease is not directly related to the performance of his/her duties, if at least the overwork or stress overlaps with the main cause of the disease and causes or worsens the disease, the causal relationship should be deemed to exist. The causal relationship does not necessarily have to be proved clearly by medical and natural science, and even if it is presumed that there is a proximate causal relationship between the occupational disease and the existing disease in light of all the circumstances, it shall be deemed that there is proof, and it shall also be included in the case where there is a sudden aggravation of the occupational disease or the existing disease that can normally serve in peace beyond the natural progress.