logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2015.08.27 2015구합51163
유족급여및장의비부지급처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 망 B(C생, 남자)는 2013. 1. 24. 사단법인 D(이하 ‘이 사건 사단법인’이라 한다)에 입사하여 근무하여 오던 중, 2013. 10. 12. 10:00경 출근하여 강화도에서 개최되는 ‘E 워크�’ 행사를 진행하게 되었다.

B. Around 04:00 on October 13, 2013, the Deceased returned to her home at around 23:00, when the symptoms of the instant event were serious, and around 04:0 on the following day, the Deceased visited the “F Hospital” to undergo treatment under the diagnosis of a scarcity, and died at around 09:43 on the same day.

(hereinafter “instant death accident”). C.

The diagnosis of the deceased’s death is written as follows: “(A) direct death: acute heart suspension; (b) the cause of (a): acute heart disorder; and (c) the cause of (c) and (b).”

On November 27, 2013, the Plaintiff, the deceased’s spouse, asserted that the instant death accident constitutes occupational accidents, and requested bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses against the Defendant. However, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the instant death on February 4, 2014, on the ground that “The instant death accident is determined to have occurred due to natural aggravation, such as the deceased’s spacinology urology, high blood pressure, etc., and thus, there is no proximate causal relation between the instant death and the instant accident.”

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for review on April 25, 2014, but was dismissed on June 11, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination on August 6, 2014, and the request for reexamination was dismissed on November 10, 2014. As the request for reexamination was dismissed on November 10, 2014, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on January 15, 2015.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence 1, 2, 4, 6, Eul's evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was based on the overall control of the secretariat’s affairs of the instant incorporated association, and the visit of more than 100 district subdivisions.

arrow