logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2018.06.08 2017구합69106
유족급여및장의비부지급처분취소
Text

1. The disposition that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on April 15, 2016 as bereaved family benefits and funeral site wages shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) is a company established for the purpose of manufacturing and selling motor vehicle parts, and C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) is a company established for the purpose of manufacturing and selling high precision.

Both B and C have its headquarters in Korea, and C is an affiliate of B.

On September 1, 2011, the network D (hereinafter referred to as “the network”) entered into B and worked as a director in charge of the general planning and audit office, and moved to C, which is an affiliate of B, on March 1, 2012, and worked as the head of the audit team and the director.

C Around 2011, Around May 1, 201, acquired E Limited Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “E”) in China, and on May 1, 201, the Deceased was ordered to receive personnel affairs at E’s general interest.

B. On February 2, 2013, the Deceased was used in E office, and was sent to the Chinese F Hospital, and was diagnosed by the foregoing hospital as a heart color, etc., but was hospitalized on April 1, 2013.

C. On January 11, 2016, the Plaintiff, the deceased’s spouse, claimed bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses to the Defendant.

On April 15, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition of bereaved family's benefits and funeral expenses, on the ground that "the causal relationship with the deceased's heart color is recognized, and thus, the deceased died of his occupational disease. However, the deceased, as an overseas dispatched person under Article 122 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter "Industrial Accident Insurance Act") on the ground that he is not a worker who applied for purchase of insurance and obtained approval pursuant to the above provision, and thus, he cannot be subject to the same Act."

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

Although the Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the above disposition and filed a request for examination, the Defendant decided to dismiss the request for examination on November 2016, after review by the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Review Committee.

The Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination with the Re-Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, but the said Committee dismissed the request for reexamination on March 23, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, A No. 1.

arrow