유족보상금부지급처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff’s husband’s husband B (C students, hereinafter “the deceased”) was appointed as a teacher and served as an assistant principal of the D High School belonging to the Chungcheongnam-do Office of Education from September 1, 201 to Chungcheongnam-do Office of Education.
B. From March 13, 2013 to 17:30 to 20:00, the Deceased participated in the meetings between the officers of the D Senior Modern Assembly and the staff of D High School (hereinafter “the instant meeting”).
After March 13, 2013, the deceased was on board and returned to the vehicle driven by the police staff at the same time on March 13, 2013, and was left before the G Sski in the vicinity of the G Sski, and became missing.
On March 17, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for adjudication of disappearance with respect to the Deceased as the Seosan Branch of the Daejeon Family Court Branch of the Daejeon Family Court for adjudication of disappearance, and the said court rendered a decision of adjudication of disappearance with respect to the Deceased on December 18, 2014.
C. On April 22, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a claim for bereaved family’s compensation with the Defendant on the ground that the deceased’s death constitutes an accident involving official duties. However, on June 23, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition of paying bereaved family’s compensation to the Plaintiff on the following grounds:
(hereinafter “instant disposition.” The Deceased cannot be deemed to have died of an accident that occurred during his returning home by normal method and net method after the end of the meeting. As such, the Deceased’s death cannot be deemed as having a substantial causal relationship with his official duties.
On August 27, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a petition for review seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Public Official Pension Benefit Review Committee. However, the Plaintiff was dismissed on November 11, 2015.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that drinking exceeded the volume of alcohol in the instant ceremony due to official duty, and caused a trouble in normal operation or judgment capacity. The death of the deceased constitutes an accident on official duty.