유족급여 및 장의비 부지급처분 취소
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff’s father He (FF students, hereinafter “the deceased”) served as a taxi engineer at the call-si Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “si company”) located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Gangdong-gu, 334-2 (hereinafter “si company”).
B. On September 3, 2013: (a) around 03:25, the Deceased filed a dispute with G, who is a charged worker, outside the atmosphere room of the taxi company, and went beyond the back by the price of the uniforms; (b) there was cerebral blood from the cement floor; (c) the decedent was sent to the Seoul Cement Hospital and was under medical treatment; (d) on September 14, 2013, the decedent died of cerebral typosis due to thirropical pule transfusion at around 00:31.
C. The Plaintiffs asserted that the deceased’s death constitutes an occupational accident and claimed expenses for bereaved family’s benefits and funeral expenses. However, on April 15, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision on the amount of bereaved family’s benefits and funeral expenses (hereinafter “disposition of this case”) to the Plaintiffs on the ground that “The deceased’s death was unfilled in order to pay off the deceased’s death to G, which was earlier than that of the preceding day, was in attendance at the atmosphere of the taxi company, and flaged first, and caused the death by G’s assault.” That is, the deceased’s death cannot be deemed as an occupational accident, on the ground that it constitutes a case where the deceased’s death stimulates the other party beyond the normal limit of duties.”
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 4 and the purport of whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The deceased, the main point of the plaintiffs' assertion, who is a taxi engineer, died of assault from G while disputing the problem of management of shift workers G and vehicles. This is unlawful in the disposition of this case to the different purport even though there is a proximate causal relation with work as a reality of human relations or risks inherent in or accompanying ordinary work in the workplace occurring within the scope of duties.
(b)the facts of recognition are: