진폐위로금차액부지급처분취소
1. On July 22, 2016, the Defendant’s disposition to pay the difference between pneumoconiosis survivors’ consolation benefits to the Plaintiff is revoked.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
1. The Plaintiff’s spouse B (hereinafter “the deceased”) served as the competent coal ray in the Korea Coal Corporation and the Korea Coal Corporation. On May 15, 200, upon being determined as the type 1 of pneumoconiosis-based disease type, the Plaintiff’s spouse was killed on January 25, 2016 as the pulmonary tuberculosis of pneumoconiosis-based witnesses.
Accordingly, the Defendant paid pneumoconiosis consolation benefits to the Plaintiff pursuant to Articles 24 and 25 of the Act on the Prevention of Pneumoconiosis and Protection, etc. of Pneumoconiosis Workers (amended by Act No. 10304, May 20, 2010; hereinafter “Revised Pneumoconiosis Act”).
On July 19, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for the payment of bereaved family consolation benefits with respect to the difference between the accrued pneumoconiosis consolation benefits and the paid pneumoconiosis consolation benefits, claiming that the Plaintiff should pay bereaved family consolation benefits to the Plaintiff as bereaved family members pursuant to the former Act on the Prevention of Pneumoconiosis and Protection, etc. of Pneumoconiosis Workers (amended by Act No. 10304, May 20, 2010; hereinafter “former Pneumoconiosis Act”).
On July 22, 2016, the Defendant: (a) on May 15, 200, the Deceased died during the period of continuous medical care as a pulmonary tuberculosis as an active tuberculosis for pneumoconiosis patients; and (b) on the ground that it cannot be deemed that disability consolation benefits or disability consolation benefits under the former Pneumoconiosis Act were paid or satisfied the requirements for payment of disability consolation benefits under Article 5 of the Addenda to the amended Pneumoconiosis Act was not applicable to the Plaintiff; (c) on the ground that the cause for payment of disability consolation benefits was not a “worker for whom the cause for payment of disability consolation benefits occurred” under the previous provision, the Defendant
(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap’s evidence 1, 2, Eul’s evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether a disposition is lawful or not, even if it is impossible to completely recover from a workplace where dust has occurred due to modern medicine, it is difficult to continue the proceeding and to predict the degree of progress.
Supreme Court Decision 199Do348 delivered on 197.