logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2015.06.23 2014구단10272
유족급여및장의비부지급처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

Details of the disposition

Around 02:00 on March 5, 2014, when the Plaintiff’s husband was working at Hyundai item Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant business site”), the deceased, who was sent back to the hospital, after being fluence and fluoral dynasty. However, on March 5, 2014, around 04:06, the deceased was killed by being fluored as a direct death.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff claimed for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses to the Defendant that the deceased’s death constitutes occupational accidents. However, on July 25, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition of survivors’ benefits and funeral funeral expenses on the ground that there is no proximate causal relation with the deceased’s death.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). (hereinafter “instant disposition”) did not dispute (based on recognition”), and the summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion on the legality of each of the dispositions stated in the evidence Nos. 3 through 5, was transferred to the steel quality control team on April 17, 2012 when the plant business division transferred the plant to Chungcheongnam-si.

From that time, the Deceased was completely engaged in new work, resulting from heavy stress due to rapid changes in the work environment, and was performing excessive work, such as overtime work, from time to time to time in order to learn new work. The steel scrap quality control work was performed at a workplace with a strong noise and dust, and was frequently conducted with workers. At the time of the outbreak of the instant injury, the Deceased was in a chronicly accumulated state and occupational stress.

Although there are existing diseases, such as cerebral ties and high blood pressure, the deceased has continued to observe the deceased, and have been given appropriate treatment while taking drugs.

Therefore, the deceased’s occupational negligence, stress, etc. after the transition rather than the existing disease caused the injury of this case.

arrow