유족급여및장의비부지급처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On June 1, 2009, the Plaintiff’s ASEAN (hereinafter “the deceased”) entered the business system (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) and performed the duties of accounting accounting, customer work place A/S work, material management, quotation processing, installation, transfer, repair, etc.
B. On April 30, 2012, at around 07:22, the Deceased was suffering from an accident that was used in the toilet at his own home (hereinafter “instant accident”) while preparing to work in accordance with the company’s demand to work, and was transferred to a D Hospital and was diagnosed by the prop-off transfusion (hereinafter “instant injury”). On May 2, 2012, the Deceased National University’s Doctrine Hospital affiliated with the university of Eluri National University was sent to the Sctrine Hospital for treatment and was receiving treatment. On May 2, 2012, the Deceased died as “direct death: the heart stop, the middle-line event: the brain function before the brain death, and the front-time death: the middle-time death.”
C. The Plaintiff, his father of the Deceased, requested the bereaved family’s benefits and funeral expenses on the ground that the deceased’s death constitutes an occupational accident. However, on October 15, 2012, the Defendant rendered a disposition of bereaved family’s benefits and funeral expenses against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the proximate causal relation with his/her duties is not recognized because it is difficult to recognize any occupational occupational fault and stress.”
(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.
On February 25, 2013, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for reexamination, but was dismissed by the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1 through 4, Eul 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was that the company’s work volume and working hours, such as the preparation of a company’s own contract, the settlement of estimates, and the settlement of accounts at the end of the month prior to the occurrence of the instant accident, were remarkably increased. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not take rest on April 28, 2012, which is a holiday.