logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.11.03 2017구합66459
유족급여부지급처분취소
Text

1. Each of the plaintiffs' claims is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff A is the deceased's spouse of the deceased C (D students, hereinafter "the deceased"), and the plaintiff B is the deceased's child.

The defendant is a corporation entrusted by the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries with affairs such as determination and payment of insurance benefits under Article 9 of the Act on Accident Compensation Insurance for Fishing Vessels and Fishing Vessels (hereinafter referred to as the "Disaster Insurance for Fishing Vessels

B. On November 2, 2012, when the deceased worked as the crew of E (6.05 tons, ship number F, and insurance relation formation date), died from the pain treatment and hospitalized treatment due to cerebral typhism, cerebral typhism in the G General Hospital, Joseon University Hospital, and H convalescent hospital, etc., and due to cerebral typhism, cerebral typhism, cerebral typhism, and other mathic symptoms, etc. on June 5, 2016.

C. The Plaintiffs asserted that the deceased died for reasons other than his/her duties while on duty, and thus, constitutes the subject of bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses under the main sentence of Article 27(2) and Article 28(1) of the Seafarers Disaster Insurance Act. On February 17, 2017, the Plaintiffs claimed for the payment of bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses to the Defendant.

However, as the deceased died on June 5, 2016, after three months from November 2, 2012, which was the first day of the medical care, the Defendant decided to pay only funeral expenses to the Plaintiffs on the ground that the deceased does not fall under those entitled to bereaved family benefits under the main sentence of Article 27(2) of the Seafarers Disaster Insurance Act, and notified the Plaintiffs on March 31, 2017.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The Disposition in this case is without dispute; Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4; Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The main text of Article 27(2) of the Act on the Insurance of Seafarers of Fishing Vessels asserted by the Plaintiffs provides medical treatment for diseases caused by reasons other than duties while on duty.

arrow