logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2018.10.04 2017구합62464
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’s husband’s husband’s net B (CB, hereinafter “the deceased”) is a person who had worked as quarrying in the Yellow Industries Co., Ltd. from April 22, 1996 to July 31, 198, and from August 1, 1998 to October 20, 190, respectively.

B. From June 22, 2009 to June 26, 2009, the Deceased was judged as Grade 11 of the disability grade in the precise diagnosis of pneumoconiosis conducted by the Defendant D Hospital. The deceased was determined as Grade 2/2 of the pneumoconiosis-type disease type, complicationt tact (non-activity-based petin), and Grade 11 of the cardiopulmonary function.

C. The Deceased died at the E Hospital around 01:55 on March 21, 2015.

The death diagnosis of the deceased is written by the direct deather as the Repulmonary part and the cardiopulmonary part, the intermediate winner as the pulmonary part and the pulmonary part, the pulmonary part, the pulmonary part, and the previous death.

On April 13, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the deceased’s death constitutes occupational accidents caused by pneumoconiosis, and filed a claim for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses with the Defendant on April 13, 2015. However, the Defendant issued a disposition to the Plaintiff on February 17, 2016, based on the medical opinion that “The deceased died of a chronic closed-end disease meeting only standards for diagnosis of cardiopulmonary functionless disorder in the pulmonary function performed at the 11-month end-of-life examination of the 11-month end-of-life medical institution, which was confirmed four days before the deceased died while the deceased died, due to the decline in the pulmonary function and the degradation function of care.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). (e)

Although the Plaintiff filed a request for examination against the instant disposition with the Defendant, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for examination on August 12, 2016. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination against the instant disposition with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, but the said Committee rejected the Plaintiff’s request for reexamination on January 6, 2017.

arrow