logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2017.06.29 2017구합194
유족급여및장의비부지급처분취소
Text

1. On January 22, 2016, the Defendant’s disposition of bereaved family benefits and funeral expense against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

2...

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. During the Plaintiff’s husband’s husband’s net B (CB, hereinafter “the deceased”) worked as an employee affiliated with D, the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as “this case’s injury to the 1, 4th pressur pressure frame, light and confection base, dratum dratum, and the left-hand side satise,” etc. (hereinafter “instant injury”). due to the occupational accident that happens in which the Plaintiff’s husband’s body was cut in the consortium, and fell on January 20, 206.

B. On February 29, 2008, the Deceased was receiving a disability pension after receiving medical treatment until February 29, 2008 from the Defendant.

B. On December 23, 2015, the Plaintiff discovered that the Deceased was in excess of his/her home toilet floor and sent it to E Hospital, but the Deceased died at around 02:05 on the same day.

On January 4, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the deceased died from the instant injury and disease, and filed a claim for survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses against the Defendant. On January 22, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the causal link between the death of the deceased and the injury and the bereaved family’s benefits and funeral expenses were not recognized.

E. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for examination and reexamination, but all of the above claims were dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4 through 7, 11, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4 and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s death of the Deceased is in proximate causal relation with the instant difference, and thus, the instant disposition based on a different premise is unlawful.

B. 1) The deceased’s health condition (from January 20, 2006 to August 21, 2013, the deceased does not indicate the same as “one-time pulmonary pressure of the deceased from January 20, 2006 to August 21, 2013” high blood pressure of the deceased, detailed unknown acute scarcitys, and other chronic closure diseases specified by the chest, and scarcitys.

arrow