미지급보험급여부지급처분취소
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 June 27, 2013, the deceased B (hereinafter “the deceased”) was under work at the construction site and received medical care until February 28, 2015 due to “a rapid and acute eromatic surgery, external cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral sis, and a qualitative mental disorder.” After receiving disability compensation annuities determined as class 2 Subparag. 5 of the disability grade, the deceased on December 13, 2016, upon receiving rehabilitation treatment, psychological treatment, etc. from C Hospital, D Hospital, and E Hospital.
B. After the disaster of this case, the deceased’s children were undergoing the deceased’s veterinary procedure, and were replaced by the deceased, and incurred expenses, such as non-benefit hospital expenses, rehabilitation treatment expenses, and nursing fees.
C. On January 12, 2007, the Plaintiff reported the marriage with the Deceased, and maintained marital relations on October 31, 2012 (the deceased reported the disappearance to the East Sea Police Station on January 4, 2013). After which the deceased’s contact with the Deceased, the Plaintiff became aware of the instant accident and the death of the Deceased only after March 2017.
On June 15, 2017, the Plaintiff claimed a lump sum of disability compensation annuity difference against the deceased. However, on August 18, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s claim (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “The Plaintiff did not constitute a bereaved family member whose livelihood had been supported by the deceased at the time of the death of the deceased, and constitutes a bereaved family member whose livelihood had been supported by the deceased at the time of the death of the deceased, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is difficult to be considered as a beneficiary of the lump sum of disability compensation annuity difference with respect to the deceased.”
E. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for review and reexamination, but all of which were dismissed.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap's statements in Gap's evidence 1 to 5, 8 and 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. 이 사건 처분의 적법 여부 ◇ 산업재해보상보험법 제57조(장해급여) ⑤...