2011-gu 117 Survivor 117, and revocation of the disposition of revocation of the payment of a non-land for funeral

1. Gima (90*****2*****)*

2. Kim○-○ (92********)*

As Plaintiff Gim-○ is a minor, the legal representative, parent, or her.

Omission of Plaintiffs’ Address

Plaintiffs’ Attorney***

The plaintiffs' derivative legal representative*, Attorney**

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Yeongdeungpo-dong 2 94-2

272-1 272-1 Total Financial Building 9 floors in Daegu-dong 2

Representative Shin Young-chul

Legal representative**,****

April 29, 2011

May 13, 2011

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

On December 13, 2010, the revocation of the disposition of the bereaved family's benefit site payment made by the defendant against the plaintiffs (the plaintiff withdrawn the part of the disposition of the revocation of the non-payment of funeral).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. He/she was working as a taxi driver of the taxi company 000.8.11. 12:50 on August 11, 2010,****************** due to a vehicle collision caused on the road.

B. Accordingly, on November 4, 2010, the Plaintiff Kim ○ and the entire wife of the deceased requested the Defendant to pay bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses as stipulated in Article 62 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, as the legal representative of the Plaintiff Kim ○○, but the Defendant rendered a priority disposition on December 13, 2010 on the ground that “○○○○○, who was in a de facto marital relationship at the time of the deceased’s death, is the beneficiary of bereaved family benefits, and the Plaintiffs are 18 years or older at the time of the deceased’s death, and do not fall under the beneficiary of the survivors’ compensation annuity as stipulated in the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 6 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

○○○ did not have the same household as the deceased, and lived together on the resident registration card. Inasmuch as there is no evidence to view it, ○○○ cannot be deemed a de facto marital relationship with the deceased, the instant disposition that concluded ○○ as a de facto spouse of the deceased ought to be revoked as unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes shall be as follows.

C. Determination

The records in Gap's lives, Gap's 5 through 8, 10, 11, Eul's 7, 8, and 13, and Eul's 7, 8, and 13 were not recorded in the same address under the resident registration card, and ○○ was divorced by mediation on December 22, 2004, it is insufficient to recognize the plaintiffs' assertion that ○○ is not a de facto spouse living with the deceased, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

In light of the following facts or circumstances, it is reasonable to view that there was a substance of marital life to recognize marital life in terms of the order of family life in light of the social norms, as a spouse in a de facto marital relationship under Articles 63(1) and 65(1)1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, who is a spouse in a de facto marital relationship under Articles 63(1) and 65(1)1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and is entitled to the survivors’ compensation annuity due to the death of the deceased, and the Plaintiffs are entitled to the lump sum survivors’ compensation annuity only due to the death of the deceased, 00 ○○, who is the survivors’ compensation annuity, exists, and thus, is not entitled to the survivors’ benefits.

① In around 2001, the deceased, as a result of the combination with the Kim ○○ in consultation, did not look at the actual affairs of the Plaintiff Kim ○, which is his father, and the Plaintiff Kim ○, who is his father, had lived with the deceased (the residence is the same as the deceased’s and Kim ○○○’s resident registration card), and the deceased thereafter sustained the obligees************, while living together with the Plaintiff Kim ○○○.

② After the end of 2005***** from the end of 2005, the Deceased and ○○○○○○○○○, operated in ○○○○○○○,**** 00, whose parents hered to work and hered to her, and hered to her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her hered with her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her with her her her her her her her her her her her with her her her her her her her her her her.

③ Although the Deceased and ○○○ had lived for a long time with ○○○ and a person living together, a report of marriage with ○○ and a person living together on the resident registration card was not registered as a person living together with ○○○ and the reason was that ○○○ failed to mediate the marital relationship with ○○ and the person living together with ○○ and the person living together with ○○ and ○○ did not appear until the end of 2004. The reason was that ○○ and ○○ received money by being registered as a recipient of basic livelihood for the purpose of settling the past conflicts (the deceased was declared bankrupt and exemption on November 17, 2008)

④ The Deceased and the Plaintiffs were transferred to * on Nov. 5, 2007 * on the resident registration card* on the Gu** Dong**-Dong**, from Feb. 17, 2009 to death ** on the Gu** Dong**********-*** at the above address while the Deceased and the ○○○○○○ was living in the above address frequently. However, in fact, while the Deceased were living in the above address, the Plaintiff Kim○ and the ○○○○ had been living in the above domicile, the mother, Kim○ and the ○○○○ were living in the above domicile, but the Plaintiff Kim○ were living in the above domicile, the mother, the son○ and the ○○○, the her resident registration domicile, but the deceased should actually live in the above domicile.

⑤ When the body of the deceased is executed as a crematorium, above*******************************’s storage of a large number of valuables, such as clothes and shoess, personal seal impressions, benefit passbook, and medicines used by the deceased to treat a usual disease, and postal items, such as a written notice of communications expenses of the deceased, were delivered. 00 and the Plaintiffs, while the deceased were in uniform, had been in the front of the funeral hall of the deceased, had been in the face of the deceased, and the Kim ○ was not in the face of the funeral hall, and the funeral cost of KRW 4.5 million was borne individually by the ○○○.

④ In around 2008, ○○○ and the mother of the Deceased and the Deceased were present at the middle school graduate ceremony of the Plaintiff Kim○○○, and ○○○○’s middle school graduates, the Deceased and Kim○, together with the deceased, have a photograph that the deceased had lived with 000, and **** the head of the house and the head of the Dong Ban, and neighboring residents, including the head of the Dong and the head of the Dong Ban, were submitted a joint and several confirmation letter signed by the deceased. 00, the father of the 7 deceased, who is the father of the 7 deceased, was present at this court, and answer to the question “the deceased was able to live together with 00 and the witness was able to be ○○○.”

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Ginsung fever