유족보상금감액결정처분 취소
1. On October 4, 2013, the Defendant’s decision to reduce bereaved family’s compensation to the Plaintiffs is revoked.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. From December 16, 2012, the deceased C (hereinafter “the deceased”) served as a researcher at the National Institute of Fisheries and Fisheries in the National Institute of Fisheries and Fisheries, and from January 22, 2013, the D Research Institute affiliated with the National Institute of Fisheries and Fisheries has been working as a researcher.
B. On August 13, 2013, the Deceased worked at 08:45 on August 13, 2013. Around 10:30, the Deceased returned to the research institute after having an interview with the broadcasting company on the issue of treating sewage and wastewater in the vicinity of the bathing beach. After reporting to the director of the research institute on an interview, the decedent was used in the course of taking a rest back to the laboratory at around 11:40, and the decedent was transferred to the hospital by the 119 rescue team and carried out the cardiopulmonary resuscitation, but was eventually killed to the “private life and injury.”
C. Plaintiff A is the deceased’s spouse, and Plaintiff B claimed compensation for bereaved families under the Public Officials Pension Act on August 28, 2013 as a minor.
On October 4, 2013, the Defendant rendered a decision to reduce the compensation for bereaved families with the following purport: “The deceased’s death constitutes death in the line of duty, but there was no special treatment despite the high caller’s value as a result of the health examination, and considering the medical judgment that the failure to manage the deceased’s health and considerable smoking had a significant influence on the death, Article 62 of the Public Officials Pension Act and Article 15 subparag. 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act shall apply to the gross negligence under Article 62 of the same Act and Article 15 subparag. 2 of the same Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and the payment shall be made after a half of the amount of benefits has been reduced under
(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 3, 4, 5, Eul evidence 1-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. As a result of the Plaintiff’s alleged health examination, although the number of call rolls was somewhat high, the Plaintiff did not receive treatment and did not smoke, but the deceased’s reputation health condition.