logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.05.13 2014구합72491
유족급여및장의비부지급처분취소
Text

1. On May 14, 2014, the Defendant’s disposition of bereaved family benefits and funeral expense against the Plaintiff is revoked.

2...

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 18, 2010, the Plaintiff’s spouse B (CB; hereinafter “the deceased”) entered a company with its head office in Geumcheon-gu, Geumcheon-gu, Seoul, Seoul, its head office in 371-17 BYC CYC C, 1001 (hereinafter “instant business establishment”).

B. From June 1, 2013, until the death of the deceased, the instant construction site was dispatched to Samsung Electronic Plant Plant for the purpose of carrying out the “D Project” (hereinafter “D Project”) ordered from SamsungSS Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D Project”).

C. On September 9, 2013, at around 06:30, the Deceased came to a house, and at around 08:05, he/she went to the Samsung Electronic Plant Plant, and then went to the hospital, and used the program crowdfunding work. At around 14:15, the Deceased lost consciousness while holding a meeting on the project progress, and transferred to the hospital. However, on September 11, 2013, the Deceased died of the serious brain thale in the surgery process.

The Plaintiff asserted that the deceased’s death constitutes occupational accidents, and applied for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses to the Defendant. However, on May 14, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition not to pay survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relationship between the deceased’s death and his/her duties.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 3-2 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s excessive side of the deceased’s assertion is confirmed, and there was no person who could cause cerebral dystrophism to the deceased, and thus, the instant disposition made on a different premise is unlawful despite the recognition of proximate causal relation between the deceased’s work and the deceased’s death.

(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in Appendix 2.

C. (1) In addition to those subject to treatment due to skin diseases, etc. before the death of the deceased, it is in the form of a high blood pressure or cerebrovascular disease.

arrow