logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2015.04.16 2014구합10641
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 January 7, 2013, the Plaintiff’s husband (hereinafter “the deceased”) entered a limited partnership C (hereinafter “C”) and served as a transit bus driver under his/her husband.

On the other hand, at around 17:00 on January 12, 2013, the Deceased was found to have been placed outside the bus parked in the rear hole of the E Logistics Center D located in Chungcheongbuk-gun, and immediately returned to the hospital, but died at around 19:0 on the same day.

As a result of the autopsy and appraisal on the deceased, the cause of the death of the deceased is presumed to be “emergency funeral service”.

B. On August 20, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that the deceased’s death was caused by an occupational accident, and requested the Defendant to pay survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses. As to this, on October 23, 2013, the Defendant rendered a decision on the bereaved family’s benefits and funeral expenses (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “it is difficult to deem that the deceased was in the occupational line prior to his death or that stress was accumulated therefrom, and as a result of the autopsy, the deceased did not discover a private person who could explain the deceased’s death outside the core disease of the heart, and on the ground that there is no proximate causal relation with the deceased’s death.”

C. On December 30, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, but the said request was dismissed on February 27, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 13, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4 and 6 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) was operating F-based buses from 06:40 to 21:20 on a daily basis from January 7, 2013 to from 06:40 on January 9, 2013; (b) operated a bus via the E Logistics Center from January 10 to January 11, 2013; and (c) operated a bus via the E Logistics Center from 07:00 to 20:30 on a daily basis by adding a total of 14 hours and 20 minutes to a total of 13 hours and 130 minutes from January 10, 2013.

arrow