유족급여및장의비불승인처분취소
1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the lower court’s acceptance of the judgment of the first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for adding the following judgments, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Determination as to whether a proximate causal relationship exists between the supplementary determination work and the accident shall be made with careful consideration of various circumstances, such as whether the employer solicits the worker to drink alcohol or has de facto forced alcohol, or whether drinking was made voluntarily by the worker himself/herself at his/her own judgment or will, the amount of drinking alcohol to other workers besides the worker affected by the disaster, what degree the degree of the accident occurred, whether the disaster is within the ordinary risk associated with the process of a series of times related to his/her duties, and whether the disaster is not a disaster that occurred through another abnormal route unrelated to the mental and physical disorder caused by the
(Supreme Court Decision 2013Du25276 Decided November 12, 2015). In light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, the said legal doctrine is considered.
In full view of the following circumstances and circumstances cited by the first instance court, which are acknowledged by the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by this judgment, the deceased appears to have suffered an accident of this case as its main cause, even though he did not coercion, etc. by the employer in the instant case, and even considering all the circumstances asserted by the plaintiffs, it is difficult to find a proximate causal relationship between the work and the deceased’s death.
Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.
① The Plaintiffs asserted that it was difficult for the Deceased to refuse to drink alcohol in this case on the grounds of abstract grounds, such as Korea’s general drinking culture. In this case, the Plaintiffs did not assert or prove that the business owner, in fact, recommended the Deceased to drink alcohol or forced the Deceased to do so.
Rather, this case.