logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2015.10.08 2014구합73487
유족급여 및 장의비청구 부지급처분 취소
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;

A. On August 1, 2010, the deceased B (CB; hereinafter “the deceased”) was employed as an urban bus driver on August 1, 2010.

B. On March 19, 2014, the Deceased was driving an urban bus at the tin village heading in the direction of tin-water heading. On March 23:46, 2014, and was transferred to a nearby Seoul Asan Hospital by suffering from divers, etc., of a traffic accident, following a vehicle in the atmosphere signal from the remote distance of Songpa-gu Office, leading to a stormer and a stormer. However, on March 20, 2014, the Deceased died of multi-faced trauma around 00:0.

C. On August 29, 2014, the Plaintiff claimed that he/she himself/herself is a de facto spouse of the deceased and demanded the payment of bereaved family benefits to the Defendant. However, on October 2 of the same year, the Defendant rendered a decision on site wages (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff is not recognized as a beneficiary of bereaved family benefits because it falls under a de facto marital relationship with the deceased’s legal status, even if it was in a de facto marital relationship.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 10-2, 7-10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion and the Deceased lived with the intention of marriage from October 2010, and they were de facto marital relations, such as marriage worship at Diplomatic Association around December of the same year.

Although the deceased’s wife is E, the Plaintiff asked the deceased to “I had no idea of marriage, and cooperation with Broman.”

Therefore, even though the legal divorce of the deceased is null and void, the defendant's disposition of this case, which reported differently, is unlawful.

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

C. The deceased married with F on March 12, 1980 and married with F on August 1, 1988, and married with F again on March 30, 1995, but married with F on February 10, 2004. The deceased was married with F, and on February 10, 2004, the deceased was married with F, and the deceased’s family members were H and Y I of the deceased. 2) The deceased was married with F. The deceased on January 13, 2005.

arrow