logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2014.03.25 2013구합10311
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. From March 1, 1983 to January 1, 1985, the Plaintiff’s husband’s net B (hereinafter “the deceased”) worked as the Defendant’s husband at the D Mining Center Co., Ltd., Ltd., for three months from December 4, 1986 to March 9, 1987.

[The plaintiff alleged that the deceased worked as the coal production department and the digging-out department in the G mining center, C mining center, D Mining center, etc. located in Gangwon-gun E (Gu F) for about 14 years from around 1974 to March 9, 1987, but it is not possible to recognize the above only by the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 (including the number of branches), and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them).

On April 23, 2009, the Deceased was diagnosed as pulmonary cancer at the Gangseoansan Hospital, and was hospitalized at the Gangseoansan Hospital, the Yansan Hospital, the static Industrial Complex, etc., and died from pulmonary cancer at the Yansan Hospital on March 27, 2010.

C. Accordingly, on May 19, 2010, the Plaintiff asserted that the deceased’s death was an occupational accident, and filed a claim for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses with the Defendant. However, on June 7, 2010, the Defendant rendered a decision to refuse payment on the ground that “the deceased’s death is determined to have been caused by primary lung cancer, but, in the precise diagnosis of pneumoconiosis, the pneumoconiosis type is zero-0, while the disease type is deemed to have been caused by the pneumoconiosis, and the chest radiation shooting also fell short of the criteria for recognition of the complication of primary lung cancer, and thus the deceased’s death cannot be deemed to have been caused by the pneumoconiosis or its complication (hereinafter “instant primary disposition”).

The Plaintiff filed a petition for review against the first disposition of this case, but the Defendant dismissed the petition for review on October 2010, and the Plaintiff also filed a petition for review, but the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s petition for review.

E. The Plaintiff filed a claim for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses to the Defendant, but the Defendant already decided on March 5, 2013.

arrow