logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2020.04.22 2018구단1552
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;

A. The plaintiff is the spouse of the deceased B.

On March 20, 2017, the Deceased died of a worker of C (hereinafter referred to as “workplace”) on the ground that he/she was diagnosed for brain resistant surgery and conducted chronological surgery on the basis of chronological surgery on April 15, 2017.

B. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant injury or disease was caused by excessive work and stress, and thus caused the death of the deceased, and filed a claim for the payment of bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses.

On December 15, 2017, through the Occupational Disease Determination Committee, the Defendant rendered a decision on bereaved family benefits and funeral site expenses (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on December 15, 2017 on the ground that there is no proximate causal relation between the death and the business of the instant injury.

C. On March 14, 2018, the date of disposition is December 20, 2017 when the Plaintiff filed a petition with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee for the revocation of the instant disposition, but it seems that the instant disposition means the instant disposition.

A request for reexamination was filed on May 25, 2018, and the above claim was dismissed.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion increased work volume for one week or four days prior to the occurrence of the instant injury, and was frequently engaged in remaining work to complete the work within the two months prior to the occurrence of the instant injury during the two-month period, and was suffering from fluence due to occupational stress, etc.

Therefore, even if there is a proximate causal relationship between the deceased’s work and the deceased’s death, the instant disposition by the Defendant was unlawful on a different premise.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

C. The Deceaseds of the 1 Deceased’s outbreak is recognized.

arrow