logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
서울행정법원 2018.08.16 2017구합5935
유족급여 및 장의비부지급 처분 취소
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. On September 26, 1994, the Plaintiff’s husband (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s husband”) entered D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) and carried out radioactive DSS’s work at the old factory (hereinafter “instant factory”).

B. On June 21, 2016, around 06:17, the Deceased was found to have been first used in the second floor toilets of the E production team building in the instant plant, and was transferred to the Gocheon-do University affiliated with the 119 Emergency Medical Service and was treated as a patient room, but died at low-carbon around 17:51 on the same day.

C. The Plaintiff asserted that the deceased’s death constitutes an occupational accident, and filed a claim for the payment of bereaved family’s benefits and funeral expenses. However, on April 19, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition of bereaved family’s benefits and funeral expenses in accordance with the results of the deliberation by the Committee on Determination of Occupational Diseases on the ground that “It is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relationship with the deceased’s death because it is judged that the deceased’s occupational stress on the deceased’s death and the increase in the intensity of his work were insignificant for about seven years, since the deceased worked in the factory of this case without changing his work place, and continued to work in the factory of this case for about seven years, which is the work before the death, there was no significant change in his work, and there was no reason to confirm that the deceased had a mental or abnormal state immediately before his death, although the deceased was unable to apply for a desired retirement, and the deceased was forced by the company for a desired retirement.”

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, but the said Committee rendered a ruling dismissing the said request on June 29, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] dispute.