logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.01.14 2015구합9216
유족보상금감액처분취소
Text

1. The Defendant’s decision to reduce the compensation for bereaved families, which was made on June 29, 2015, is revoked.

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

Reasons

On February 23, 2015, at around 08:52, the Plaintiff, the husband of the instant disposition, was found to be hidden while serving as C by the Incheon Immigration Office of the Ministry of Justice.

(hereinafter “B”. The Plaintiff asserted that the deceased’s death constituted death in the line of duty and claimed compensation for bereaved family members under the Public Officials Pension Act on March 19, 2015.

On June 29, 2015, the Defendant decided on June 29, 2015 that the Plaintiff paid the bereaved family’s compensation under Article 53 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Officials Pension Act by reducing 1/2 of the same Act by applying the gross negligence stipulated under Article 62 of the same Act and Article 15 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, on the ground that “it appears that the deceased’s death constitutes death on official duty, but there was a medical opinion that he/she needs food care, urine care, and blood pressure control as a result of the health examination in 2012 and 2013, but he/she neglected health care, such as the deceased’s excessive smoking without receiving appropriate treatment.”

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case’s Disposition”). (hereinafter “Disposition”) without dispute, the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the Disposition in this case’s statement and the purport of the entire argument as to Gap’s evidence No. 4, and the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the Disposition in this case’s disposition, is due to the Plaintiff’s medical examination result that the Plaintiff was required to provide food care and urine and blood pressure control, etc., and the Plaintiff’s refusal of tobacco and conducted a daily miscarriage movement, but it was caused by stress caused by excessive work.

Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case, which decided to reduce the compensation for survivors of the Plaintiff on a different premise, cannot be deemed as having gross negligence on death, is unlawful.

It shall be as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

Facts of recognition

The date of determination of the results of the general health examination in 2012, such as the health conditions of the deceased: A comprehensive determination on September 24, 2012.

arrow