유족보상및장의비부지급처분취소
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 April 23, 2007, the network B (hereinafter “the network”) entered a company specializing in collecting closed mileage (hereinafter “non-party company”) and was in charge of the inspection of, and entry into, waste mileage products.
On May 7, 2012, the deceased was found to be hidden in the three sides of his residence.
As a result of the autopsy, the cause of the deceased’s death was determined to be “the brain-resistant resistant typosis and sulphical typosis (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”).
B. On July 19, 2013, the Plaintiff, the father of the Deceased, requested the Defendant to pay bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses on the ground that the deceased’s death was caused by an occupational disease. However, on July 19, 2013, the Defendant rendered a disposition on bereaved family benefits and funeral funeral expenses (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the deceased’s death was caused by the natural aggravation of congenital diseases, and the proximate causal relation with the work is not recognized.”
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 9, Eul evidence 1 and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The legality of disposition.
A. Even if the Plaintiff’s assertion for the death was a astronomical disease called the East Balercule type, considering that the deceased’s age was over 34 years at the time of the death, and that the deceased’s health condition was normal, the cause of the death led to the death was continuously exposed to all harmful substances, including the fine dust from waste earth and sand, and waste gas, for six years through the non-party company, and the existing disease was aggravated beyond the natural progress.
Therefore, there is a proximate causal relation between the deceased’s death and the deceased’s duties, and the Defendant’s disposition of this case based on a different premise is unlawful.
B. 1) In fact, the non-party company, working for the deceased, was collected from the collection.