logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.09.14 2017구합55701
유족급여및장의비부지급처분취소
Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Youngjin Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Yjin Industry”) was awarded a subcontract for a part of the C Corporation from Hyundai Construction Co., Ltd. and Gyeongjin Construction Co., Ltd.

From November 12, 2014, the Plaintiffs’ networks D (hereinafter referred to as “the network”) had been employed in the field of the construction (hereinafter “instant construction site”) and worked as a government-private partnership in the field of the construction (hereinafter “instant construction site”).

B. On August 12, 2016, the Deceased accommodated in a temporary building E (hereinafter “instant accommodation”) at the time of T while working at the instant construction site, and died from a fire that occurred in the instant accommodation around August 23:15, 2016.

C. The Plaintiffs asserted that the deceased’s death was an occupational accident and claimed for the payment of bereaved family’s benefits and funeral expenses. However, on November 30, 2016, the Defendant was using the facilities, etc. provided by the business owner on the grounds that it is not confirmed that the deceased’s death was an occupational accident, or that the accommodation used by the deceased was owned by the field-related industry employing the deceased or provided by the field-related industry, but the accommodation provided by the field-based industry is free to be used by the workers, and that the field-based industry was forced to use the lodging, etc. of this case.

It issued a disposition not to pay survivors' benefits and funeral expenses on the ground that it cannot be seen as an accident.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 2 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiffs’ assertion that the instant accommodation was used as a lodging place for the workers of various sub-contractors who provide labor at the construction site of the instant case where the field of the field of the field of the field of the field of the field of the field of the field of the field of the field of the field of the field of the field of the field of the field of the field of the field of the field of the field of the field of the field of the field of

arrow