유족급여및장의비부지급처분취소
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. A. Around January 1, 2012, the Plaintiff’s mother-friendly deceased C (D students, hereinafter “the deceased”) entered the C&S Asset Management Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) and was in charge of cleaning the building of the Korea University.
B. On May 13, 2013, at around 05:25, the Deceased was discovered in the second engineering museum, No. 205:25 of the Korea University, and was transferred to the emergency room of the Korea University, and was diagnosed and treated as a “pactical heart.”
C. After doing so, the Deceased received medical treatment at the Nansan Hospital of the Human University via the Kansung Hospital, but eventually died on August 29, 2013 at around 10:22.
The Plaintiffs filed a claim for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses with the Defendant that the deceased’s death constitutes occupational accidents. However, on May 26, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition of survivors’ benefits and funeral funeral expenses (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “The deceased was suffering from a low-tension and urology, etc., and the change in the work capacity performed prior to the outbreak of acute cardiopulmonary background was higher than ordinary level, and that acute cardiopulmonary background was determined to have occurred due to natural progress, and thus, there is no proximate causal relation between the deceased’s work and the death.”
E. The Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the request for examination of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Review Committee, but the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Review Committee dismissed it, and the Plaintiffs filed a request for reexamination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Review Committee, but the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Review Committee dismissed it on February 14, 2014.
[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 6, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. As the Plaintiffs’ assertion was changed on January 3, 2013, the cleaning area was 1.5 times or wider than the relocation, and the intensity and work volume increased by more than 1.5 times.