beta
(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.11.18 2015구합71303

유족급여및장의비부지급처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 2003, the Plaintiff’s husband’s husband B (hereinafter “the deceased”) entered and worked as the president of the technical research institute affiliated with D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”).

B. From January 5, 2015, the Deceased was showing a minor body’s symptoms, and on January 7, 2015, the deceased saw two copies and clothes accompanied by high heat immediately after he/she went to the Gan University Hospital located in Jinnam-si, in order to see the literature on his/her staff members on January 7, 2015. On January 8, 2015, the deceased saw a shower and sent back to the Seoul Asan Hospital.

C. On January 9, 2015, the Deceased was diagnosed as spawn spathn spathn spathn and spathn spathn spathn spathn spathn spathn, but died on January 11, 2015.

The direct death in the death certificate is "infection in the heart", and the preceding deather is "infection in the heart". D.

The Plaintiff claimed for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses to the Defendant on the ground that the deceased’s death constitutes occupational accidents. However, on May 29, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision on the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral funeral expenses (hereinafter “instant refusal disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the death of the deceased is not recognized due to occupational causes because there was no sudden or unexpected change in the situation or business environment prior to the occurrence of the deceased, and it is difficult to recognize the death of the deceased due to short-term and chronic fault, and it is difficult to recognize the death of the deceased on the ground that

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Gap evidence No. 4-1, 2, Gap evidence Nos. 5 and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the deceased worked as a research institute at the instant company, while participating in various events of the said company at the end of a year, and engaged in overtime work, such as preparation of a survey and research concurrently, etc., and on the part of his duties, such as moving long distance after holiday work, etc.