유족급여 부지급 결정 취소
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. On March 13, 2015, the amount of bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. From February 1, 2014, the Plaintiff’s spouse B (CB; hereinafter “the deceased”) served as a full-time employee at the Chang-gun, Chang-gun, Chang-gun, Chang-gun, Chang-gun, Chang-gun, Chang-gun, Chang-gun, Seoul (hereinafter “Song-gun”).
B. On December 12, 2014, the Deceased died after falling into the bottom of the road in front of the education village in the Asia-gun, Changwon-gun, the Asia (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) while driving a vehicle owned by the Plaintiff (Efaging, TG; hereinafter “instant vehicle”) in order to work at the Non-Party Center at the place of residence (Seoul-gun, Chang Chang-gun, North Korea) (hereinafter “the instant vehicle”).
(hereinafter referred to as “instant disaster”). C.
On January 6, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for bereaved family’s benefits and funeral expenses on the ground that the instant accident constitutes an occupational accident stipulated under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act. However, on March 13, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision on the Plaintiff’s site payment as to the said claim on the ground that “A vehicle used by the Deceased at the time of the accident cannot be deemed as a vehicle owned by the deceased’s spouse and provided by the business owner for commuting to and from work, it cannot be deemed as a means of transportation or a business owner’s provision of commuting to and from work with the vehicle owned by the deceased’s spouse, but it is possible to move from his own house to and from work via public transportation for about 30 minutes (3km). However, in view of the fact that the Deceased’s commuting to and from work by his own use was reserved by the method and route of commuting to and from work, the deceased’s death does not constitute an occupational
(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, entry of Gap’s evidence Nos. 2 through 4, 7, and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 of the parties did not have any choice to get to and from work by the instant vehicle, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there was no choice to get to and from work for the Deceased, and at the time the Deceased was employed by the Nonparty Center.