logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2016.05.12 2015구합46
유족보상및장의비부지급처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 23, 1996, deceased C (hereinafter “the deceased”) who is the father of the plaintiff and the selected B entered the Sejong Industrial Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the non-party company”) and worked as the machine technician on September 25, 2012, after being transmitted to the shipping large-scale hospital via the E hospital, after being diagnosed of cerebral cerebral typhism (hereinafter “existing injury and disease”), and was diagnosed as having undergone the operation of this case at the shipping large-scale hospital on the same day (hereinafter “instant operation”).

B. At around 16:00 on December 31, 2012, the Deceased was diagnosed as “a cell cancer (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”)” at the Ulsan National University Hospital, and died of the instant injury and disease as a private person on February 16:23, 2013 while receiving aviation cancer treatment.

C. On October 9, 2012, the Deceased applied for medical care benefits for an existing injury or disease. However, on December 13, 2012, the Deceased received a disposition of non-approval for medical care from the Defendant, and the Deceased filed a request for examination against this and filed a request for examination, but was dismissed on March 5, 2013.

After the death of the deceased, the plaintiff and the selected person B filed a request for reexamination, and on May 13, 2013, the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Review Committee decided to revoke the non-approval of the medical care, and obtained the approval of the medical care for the existing injury and disease of the deceased.

Plaintiff

In addition, the Appointed B asserted that the deceased’s death constitutes an occupational accident, and filed a claim for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses with the Defendant. However, on January 8, 2014, the Defendant, on the ground that “the causal relationship between blood, medication, etc. at the time of the instant operation and the instant injury and disease is not acknowledged, and the existing injury and disease cannot be deemed aggravated due to the cause of the aftermathy or treatment of the existing injury and shall not be deemed aggravated beyond the natural transitional speed.”

arrow