logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
서울행정법원 2016.12.01 2016구합70345
재해위로금지급청구
Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The closure date of each mining station for which the plaintiffs worked and the diagnosis date of pneumoconiosis symptoms of the plaintiffs are as listed below.

Plaintiff

On December 8, 1992, A on March 12, 2006, B. B. B. 13, 1993 on August 13, 2006, C. 1989 July 28, 2006 D. 13, 2089, Jan. 23, 2006, E on January 23, 2006, 192, F. 92 July 9, 2006, July 16, 2001, G. 1992, G. 16, 2001, the purport of the whole evidence No. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 5 (including evidence No. 1, 5, and 7, respectively) of the pleading.

2. As to the plaintiffs' alleged coal industry (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14092, Dec. 31, 1993; hereinafter "former Enforcement Decree of the Coal Industry Act"), the latter part of Article 41 (3) 5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Coal Industry Act (hereinafter "the provision of this case") (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13216, Dec. 31, 1990), the application of the latter part of Article 41 (3) 4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Coal Industry Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13216, Dec. 31, 1990) to C and D is problematic, but the above provision is only moved in its location, and it

Since there is no limit on the period of a disaster, disaster compensation benefits under the above provision should be paid to the plaintiffs who suffered after the date of the closure of the disaster.

3. The details of the relevant statutes shall be as specified in attached statutes;

4. As seen earlier, the latter part of the provision of this case, which was applied at the time of the closure of each mining establishment for which the plaintiffs worked, stipulated that “a person whose disability grade is not determined as of the date of the closure of a disaster regardless of the period of the occurrence of a disaster,” as a person eligible for disaster consolation benefits. The plaintiffs received diagnosis of pneumoconiosis respectively between August 16, 2001 and March 8, 2006, which is after the date of closure of a mining establishment.

Therefore, as in the case of the plaintiffs, it is the key issue of this case whether a person who was diagnosed with pneumoconiosis after the closure date should be deemed as a person eligible for disaster compensation benefits in the interpretation of the above Enforcement Decree.

However, the following circumstances are all as follows.

arrow