유족급여및장의비일부부지급처분취소
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 September 14, 2013, Non-party B (hereinafter “the deceased”) died due to a fall accident that occurred while cleaning the outer wall of the building on the part of the employee belonging to Taesan Service Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”).
B. On October 10, 2013, the Plaintiff, the deceased’s spouse, claimed for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses to the Defendant. On November 12, 2013, the Defendant recognized the deceased’s death as an occupational accident; however, on November 12, 2013, the average wage of the deceased, which serves as the basis for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses, was calculated as KRW 65,217,000,000 per month, which is less than the Plaintiff’s assertion, as KRW 20
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.
On January 17, 2014, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for an examination with the Defendant on January 17, 2014, but was dismissed on May 16, 2014, and again filed a request for reexamination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee on July 10, 2014, and was rendered a partial revocation ruling on September 5, 2014, but the allegation regarding average wages was not accepted.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. In addition to the fixed wage of KRW 2,00,000 per month, the Plaintiff’s assertion was paid an additional on-site allowance of KRW 1,60,00 per day when the work exceeds 12 days per month. Such content may be confirmed by the Plaintiff’s confirmation of income tax withholding in 2013, the total report on the remuneration for industrial products in 2013, and the benefit ledger.
Therefore, the average wage of the deceased should be calculated based on the above materials that reflect the actual living wage of the deceased.
Even if this cannot be viewed as objective data, the defendant's disposition of this case, which calculated the average wage on the basis of the total amount of income tax and wages reported in 2012 without following the notice of special cases for calculating the average wage of the Ministry of Employment and Labor, should be revoked as it is unlawful.