beta
(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.12.21 2017구합59147

유족급여및장의비부지급처분취소

Text

1. On August 11, 2016, the Defendant’s disposition revoking the disposition of bereaved family benefits and funeral site pay to the Plaintiff on August 11, 2016.

2...

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff is the spouse B.

B was employed in April 14, 201 as the 1960s and served as an affiliated urban bus news service worker (hereinafter “instant company”).

B. B worked at around 04:30 to 05:00 on December 10, 2015, and retired from work at around 13:00 to 14:00 on the same day. On the same day, at around 19:00 on the same day, he was found to have lost consciousness in his residence.

B transferred to the Hanyang University Hospital, and received medical treatment in a middle-term patient room, but died on December 13, 2015, as “ brain pressure and training paralysis due to cerebrovascular transfusion”.

(hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”). (c)

The Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for the payment of bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, alleging that the Deceased had been in excess of working on holidays or substitute services from time to time after his/her entry, and stress on the treatment of traffic accidents that occurred at the time of his/her death

On August 11, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision not to pay bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the death of the deceased cannot be deemed to have caused overwork or stress in light of the time of the deceased’s work, the amount of work, etc., and that the injury of the deceased, such as blood pressure or abnormal support transfusion, etc., was the cause of death.

On January 6, 2017, the plaintiff filed a request for examination against the defendant, but was dismissed.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1, 3 evidence, Eul's 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion died of overwork and stress arising from traffic accidents caused by the death of the deceased, there is a proximate causal relation between the death and the work of the deceased.

(b) evidence A of recognition Nos. 1, 2, 7 through 17;