유족급여및장의비부지급처분취소
1. On May 31, 2013, the Defendant’s disposition revoking the disposition of bereaved family benefits and funeral site pay to the Plaintiff as to the Plaintiff.
2...
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff’s husband’s husband B (CB, hereinafter “the deceased”) worked as the building manager of the building D in Gyeyang-gu, Soyang-gu (hereinafter “the instant building”).
B. On February 24, 2013, at around 09:20, a fire occurred on the first floor of the instant building. On February 26, 2013, the Deceased, after completing duties on February 26, 2013, was used in the course of getting on and off a taxi, and died at around 18:51 on the same day from among the roads transferred to a medical institution by the 119 emergency squad.
C. Accordingly, on May 3, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that the death of the deceased constituted an occupational accident and claimed expenses for bereaved family benefits and funeral. However, on May 31, 2013, the Defendant rendered a decision to refuse payment (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relation with the deceased’s death and the work” on the ground that the Defendant’s refusal to pay the Plaintiff on May 31, 2013, considering the following: (a) there was a chronic and acute disease, such as the fact that there was no apparent influence on the outbreak other than ordinary work performance in light of the content of the work performed as security guards; and (b) the stress caused by the fire that occurred on February 24, 2013 was a direct cause of death, rather than the fact that the stress caused by the death was caused by the existing high blood pressure merger, and thus, was likely to have died due to the natural aggravation of the heart disease.
Therefore, the Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination following a request for reexamination, but the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for reexamination on August 1, 2013.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. Mental stress caused by a fire accident caused by the deceased’s workplace, which occurred at the time of the Plaintiff’s assertion, was suffering from the deceased’s existing suffering, at the natural progress.