유족보상금 부지급 결정 취소
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. On October 23, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision on compensation for survivors’ benefits to the Plaintiffs.
1. Facts that there is no dispute over the details of the disposition [based for recognition], evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 6, each entry of evidence of subparagraph 1 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings;
A. C (D students, hereinafter “the deceased”) was appointed as fire-fighting officials on September 25, 2006 and served as the E19 rescue team from May 7, 2012.
B. From August 2013, the Deceased suffered from high heat and respiratory distress symptoms, and on November 19, 2013, the Deceased was diagnosed as “hererogen species transferred to the heart and heart,” and died on June 23, 2014 during aviation cancer treatment.
C. On September 1, 2015, the deceased’s spouse A and Plaintiff B claimed compensation for survivors’ compensation to the Defendant.
However, on October 23, 2015, the Defendant: (a) confirmed that the deceased died of her heart maculous math in the heart. The Plaintiffs asserted that the deceased died of her heart maculous substances, harmful gases, etc. caused by repeated exposure to toxic substances, harmful gases, etc. at the site of a disaster while serving as 119 rescue team members; (b) but there is no medical basis that the maculal maculal macs are continuously exposed to toxic substances, etc. as a very rare species; and (c) on the ground that there is no clear cause and route of occurrence and infection, etc., it cannot be deemed that there is a disease caused by official duties, and thus, the Defendant issued a disposition of “the compensation for survivors’ property” on the ground that there
(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.
The plaintiffs appealed to this and filed a request for review with the Public Official Pension Benefit Review Committee, but was dismissed on March 24, 2016.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiffs asserted that the Plaintiffs were on duty as fire-fighting officials, and the Plaintiffs of the fire-fighting fire were on June 23, 2017, withdrawn the assertion in the first instance court on the occurrence of blood-related species due to the on-site activities of fire-fighting in the statement of grounds of appeal on June 23, 2017, and maintained again from the preparatory document dated September 18, 2018.