진폐유족위로금부지급처분취소
1. The Defendant’s disposition of paying pneumoconiosis consolation benefits to the Plaintiff on January 19, 2016 is revoked.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff’s husband’s husband B (hereinafter “the deceased”) worked as a light source from August 1, 1970 to July 1, 1976.
B. Around July 13, 200, the Deceased was determined as a result of a precise diagnosis of pneumoconiosis No. 1 (1/0), and as a result of a combination: active tuberculosis (tbba) and approved medical care by the Defendant around that time.
The Deceased died on May 5, 2013 while receiving medical care.
C. On May 20, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a claim for payment of pneumoconiosis consolation benefits with the Defendant, and the Defendant determined the deceased’s pneumoconiosis disability grade as class 13 pursuant to the proviso of Article 24(3) of the Act on the Prevention of Pneumoconiosis and Protection, etc. of Pneumoconiosis Workers (hereinafter “former Pneumoconiosis Prevention Act”), and on March 25, 2014, paid the Plaintiff the pneumoconiosis consolation benefits amounting to KRW 24,762,760 (average wage amounting to 215 days).
On December 21, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the deceased’s payment of disability consolation benefits under the former Pneumoconiosis Prevention Act constitutes a worker for whom the cause for receiving disability consolation benefits has occurred, and filed a claim for payment of the difference between bereaved family consolation benefits (average wage of 780 days) and the pneumoconiosis consolation benefits paid as above pursuant to Article 5 of the Addenda to the Pneumoconiosis Prevention Act (hereinafter “Annex 10304, May 2010”). However, on January 19, 2016, the Plaintiff rendered a decision on site pay to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the deceased does not constitute the beneficiary of disability consolation benefits under the former Pneumoconiosis Prevention Act.”
(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.
The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on March 10, 2016, but the said commission dismissed it on May 17, 2016.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is expected to have the effect of treatment for pneumoconiosis as at the time of determining pneumoconiosis.