beta
(영문) 서울행정법원 2020.09.11 2019구합60752

유족급여및장의비부지급처분취소

Text

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff’s spouse net B (CB, hereinafter “the deceased”) is a person who has worked as a mining source in the Dhutan mine.

B. In the precise diagnosis of pneumoconiosis conducted on July 15, 1986 and August 27, 1987, the Deceased was judged as having been judged as having a normal disease type (0/0). In the precise diagnosis of pneumoconiosis conducted on April 26, 1989, the Deceased was determined as having been determined as having "medical treatment type (0/1), complication (tbbbbaut tuberculosis), pulmonary pulmonary function (F2)."

사망의 원인 ㈏, ㈐, ㈑에는 ㈎와 직접 의학적 인과관계가 명확한 것만을 적습니다.

㈎ 직접 사인 심폐부전 ㈏ ㈎의 원인 패혈성 쇼크 ㈐ ㈏의 원인 세균성폐렴 ㈑ ㈐의 원인 진폐증 ㈎부터 ㈑까지와 관계없는 그 밖의 신체상황 -

C. The Deceased died on April 2, 2016, who was hospitalized in the E Hospital, etc. from the time of the judgment to the time of death (hospitalize 8967, 21 days), and received hospital treatment (hospitalize 8967, 21 days).

The causes of death of the deceased are as follows:

The Plaintiff asserted that the deceased died due to pneumoconiosis and its combination, and claimed the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses.

On June 9, 2016, the defendant made a decision on site price as to the plaintiff's above application, and the plaintiff appealed against the above decision and filed a request for examination to the defendant, but the above request for examination was dismissed.

E. On February 21, 2019, the Plaintiff again filed a claim for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses with the Defendant, and on February 21, 2019, the Defendant determined that “the deceased was receiving medical care due to the symptoms of pneumoconiosis and the pulmonary tuberculosis, as a result of the recent precise determination of pneumoconiosis symptoms, the deceased’s death and pneumoconiosis symptoms are low,” and rendered a decision on site pay (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

(In fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 to 3, and Eul's 1, the purport of the whole theory.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that of the Deceased at the time of his death.