2020Guhap59482 Revocation of revocation of the payment of bereaved family's benefits and funeral expenses

*

*

June 8, 2021

July 20, 2021

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

In September 25, 2019, the disposition of bereaved family's benefits and funeral expenses rendered by the Defendant to the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 6, 2007, the deceased’s spouse, was affected by an automobile accident caused by the business accident, which was conducted on the part of the arms, legs, and head of the deceased. The deceased was diagnosed as having been diagnosed as having been on the part of the bridge opened, cutting off the upper part of the bridge, cutting off the back of the vision, cutting off the left part of the body, cutting off the back of the upper part of the body, cutting off the back of the back to the left part of the body, cutting off the back to the left part of the upper part of the upper part of the body, and he was diagnosed as having been on the part of the upper part of the upper part of the body, cutting off the back to the left part of the upper part of the body, cutting down the back to the left part of the upper part of the body, and down the external part of the body of the deceased on September 30, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant occupational accident”).

B. On December 11, 2007, when the deceased treatment of the instant approved injury and disease, he/she received a re-written re-written re-written re-written re-writtenly-written re-written-written-written-written-written-written-written-written-written-written-written-written-written-written-written-written-written-written-written-written-written-written-written-written-written-written-ined-written-in-written-

C. On March 31, 2019, the Deceased was hospitalized in a convalescent hospital, and was transferred to a D emergency room, and on April 1, 2019, the Deceased died on or around 02:30. The death diagnosis report of the Deceased is written as a direct death, an intermediary showor, an intermediary, and a pre-exploitor, respectively.

D. The Plaintiff asserted that the deceased died due to the aggravation of the approved disease of this case, or died due to the merger, and thus constitutes occupational accidents, and claimed the payment of bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses to the Defendant.

E. On September 25, 2019, the Defendant: (a) regardless of the type of approval in the instant case, the deceased was subject to wing-out treatment in 2007; and (b) double wall-out treatment in 2010 and 2015; (c) on the ground that the deceased’s private person’s private person’s private person’s private person’s private person’s private person’s private person’s private person’s private person’s private person’s private person’s death is combined with such a series of double-out treatment, and thus, there is no proximate causal relation between the deceased’s death and the deceased’s death (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

F. The Plaintiff appealed to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Examination Committee, but the Committee dismissed the request for examination on January 28, 2020 for the same reason.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the result of the commission of appraisal, supplementation and supplementation to the J of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Deceased got a permanent disability of 86.73% of the disability rate by cutting her her m, which is not right-hand, most of the length of a broad bridge (70%) from her mae-mae-mae-mae-mae-mae-mae-mae-mae-mae-man (80%) and received the first grade of the disability grade. As such, the Deceased had no choice but to lose her physical ability by cutting most of the legss and make a long-term medical life.

It is easy for patients living in a long time, such as the Deceased, to suffer wing infections, and even if the wing operation is carried out, it is easy for the Deceased to suffer from the operation site. In addition, it can be deemed that the recovery has been delayed and the head of the horse cost and the head of the oil has reached the death with the Hemical shock, due to the occurrence of wing infections during the long-term treatment process due to the instant disaster, and most of the periods have been accumulated and living.

Therefore, given that there is a proximate causal relationship between the death of the deceased and the approved branch of the instant case, the instant disposition is unlawful on a different premise.

B. Determination

1) The term “occupational accident” under Article 5 subparag. 1 of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act refers to an employee’s injury, disease, physical disability, or death caused by his/her occupational performance while performing his/her duties. As such, there should be causation between the occupational accident and the occurrence of the occupational accident. In such cases, the causal relationship between the employee’s occupational disease, or death caused by the said disease should be attested by the claimant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du8204, Jan. 31, 2008).

2) Examining the following facts and circumstances revealed in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the evidence alone presented by the Plaintiff is insufficient to acknowledge that the deceased died due to the instant injury and disease, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion is difficult to accept.

① The Deceased cut part of the bridge by suffering a serious shock on the parts of the arms, legs, and head, due to the instant accident. The Deceased’s death causes were part of luculous and eyesighted. However, in light of the characteristics and causes of the instant approved clinical disease, and the difference between the outbreak and the outbreak level, it is difficult to view that the instant approved clinical disease was directly related to the lacule or the laculic shock, which is the cause of the Deceased’s death, in light of the characteristics and causes of the instant approved clinical disease, and the difference between the outbreak and the outbreak level.

② According to the results of each request for the appraisal of medical records and the results of each request for the appraisal of and supplementation to the F University G Hospital Head and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City J (the fire extinguishers department), the appraiser presented his opinion to the effect that the deceased had no direct relation between the instant injury or the instant accident because the deceased was diagnosed with acute dialogic dialoge (ACC) because it was caused regardless of the instant accident. Since the head of the said operation was milked after the operation, and the merger witness luxe color was led to the death of the deceased, and the merger witness luxe ladrosis and the luxe lae lae ladrosis were led to the death of the deceased.

In other words, the appraisal conducted by J (ACC) is likely to cause a non-conduit cymosis due to blood supply disorder after receiving 'serious trauma, but such non-conduit cymosis normally occurs within 14 days after severe trauma. However, as a result of the deceased's review of the results of the operation conducted in 2007, the deceased was diagnosed on December 11, 2017 as of December 11, 2017 after five months from the date of the accident of this case, and was diagnosed as a multi-conduit romosis (ACC) and conducted a cymosis surgery, and thus no causal relationship is established between the disaster of this case and the deceased's cymosis and the deceased's cymosis.Although the main cause of death caused by the fladial cymosis was an acute fladit, it is difficult to view the patient's overall risk increase after the operation.

In addition, the appraisal of the F University G Hospital (H department) affiliated with the deceased suggested the opinion that it is difficult to regard the approved disease of this case or the disaster of this case as a direct cause of the gyptitis or the merger certificate caused by the operation of the gyptitis in 2007 due to the gypted gymosis caused by the gymosis, the gymosis, the gymitis, and the gymitis caused the death of the deceased.

③ On the other hand, the doctor of the deceased presented his opinion to the effect that, in the medical report prepared after the death of the deceased, “the state of the deceased might have led to a reciting infection, as the condition of the deceased’s overwork, and even thereafter, it is likely that he might lead to a reciting color because it might have been exposed to a long time (Evidence No. 6 and 7).” However, since the deceased did not confirm the medical records at the time of the reciting infection operation in 2007, it is difficult to conclude that the part related to the cause of the outbreak of the reciting salt is merely a conjection, and even if the deceased lost physical ability and lived in a long time, it is difficult to conclude that the approved disease of this case or the disaster of this case was caused by the disaster of this case, or the occurrence of proximate causal causal relation between the disaster of this case and the death of the reciting, even if they were living in a long time. Therefore, there is no specific basis to presume that the deceased lost physical ability due to the disaster of this case and living in a long time.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.