logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2015.09.24 2015구합66769
유족보상금부지급처분취소
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 February 1, 1989, the Plaintiff’s husband B (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s husband”) was appointed as a public official on February 1, 1989 and served in the Daejeon Metropolitan City Environment Green Area D from January 13, 201.

B. On August 6, 2014, around 01:25, the Deceased died after being placed on the 105 front roads in the Seo-gu, Daejeon (hereinafter “instant apartment”) complex, Seo-gu, Daejeon (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On March 8, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant accident constituted death in the course of performing official duties, and filed a claim for compensation for survivors. On May 7, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition to pay compensation for survivors on the ground that “The Plaintiff rendered a disposition to pay compensation for survivors of the instant case on the ground that “The Plaintiff’s death was a private gathering, and the instant accident that occurred on the road due to the fact that the act of leaving his office was already cut off and the act of leaving office was not verified by the time of death (0.252% of the blood alcohol concentration on the written examination and appraisal) under the condition that the act of leaving office was not verified by the time of death.”

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

On June 2015, the Plaintiff filed a request for review with the Public Official Pension Benefit Review Committee to revoke the instant disposition, but the said Committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for review on July 22, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1-1, 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. From August 5, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted, until August 21:10, 2014, at the office of the Daejeon Metropolitan City Office, performed overtime work to impose bad punishment points on the installation and operation of the early excellent treatment facilities, and to modify the cleaning facilities of sewerage dredging facilities, etc., and thereafter, he/she performed overtime work by the Daejeon Metropolitan City Office until 23:0 of the same day in order to transfer the above work to the employees East G.

arrow