logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.04.29 2013구단2260
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. On October 3, 2011, B (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) was found to be a change-in body from the bottom of the Nakdongdong-dong 402-7, Busan, Seodong-dong, Busan, on August 19, 201, while serving as security personnel by entering another Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “SP”) (hereinafter “SP”) and serving as security personnel.

(hereinafter “instant disaster”). (b)

On August 24, 2012, the Plaintiff, his father of the deceased, claimed for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses to the Defendant on the ground that the instant accident constituted occupational accidents. However, on December 3, 2012, the Defendant rendered a disposition on the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the proximate causal relation between the instant accident and the deceased’s work cannot be acknowledged.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 6 evidence, Eul evidence 1 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the deceased took charge of the duty of security guard in the non-party company, and the two employees of the same staff have been on August 2012, since the number of employees has not been increased, more than the working hours have been increased.

From August 6, 2012 to August 17, 2012, the Deceased worked for 24 hours a day without any one-time holiday.

The Deceased, who was suffering from stimulative disorder, committed suicide due to the lack of waters caused by the above excess and stress caused thereby, whose normal perception ability has been significantly deteriorated.

Therefore, since there is a proximate causal relationship between the deceased’s work and the accident of this case, the instant disposition based on a different premise is unlawful.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. The deceased, such as the work environment and work performance of the deceased, was employed by the non-party company and performed the duties of the security personnel, such as customer guidance, the storage and escape of keys, the storage and escape of house-to-house distribution, the patrol in the building, and the receipt of civil petitions from the occupant company.

arrow