유족급여 및 장의비 부지급처분 취소
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiffs are siblings of the deceased E (FF, hereinafter “the deceased”).
B. On November 23, 2014, the Deceased served as an employee belonging to the Egyptor Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”). On November 23, 2014, around 10:55, the Deceased was found to be in a tent and in a studal housing situation in his/her dwelling (Cheong-gu G, 105).
C. The Plaintiffs asserted that the deceased’s death constitutes occupational accidents, and filed a claim for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses with respect to the Defendant on July 6, 2015, following deliberation by the Committee for Determination of Occupational Diseases, the Defendant rendered a disposition of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses (hereinafter “instant disposition”) for the following reasons.
In view of the opinion of the opinion of the autopsy, it is the opinion that the private person is presumed to be a acute heart funeral as it is impossible to find the private person differently except for the illness of the heart in a state where the serious disease of the private person is not confirmed to the extent that it is not confirmed.
The occurrence of a sudden and difficult incident related to the work and rapid change in the work environment within 24 hours before death is not confirmed, and it is not confirmed that a short-term increase in the business burden has not been verified in addition to the fact that the daily work hours per week prior to death were ordinarily 44 hours and 35 minutes.
The fact that the average working hours per 4 weeks prior to death and 12 weeks exceed 60 hours per 61 hours per 61 hours, 17 minutes, 61 hours, and 32 minutes, can not be confirmed. However, it is difficult to deem that the contribution was caused by the aggravation of existing diseases beyond nature, thereby causing the death, and it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relation with the work, as the private person clearly confirms.
[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Gap evidence No. 19 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiffs' assertion is that the company of this case goes beyond the boundary of the deceased.