logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.04.29 2015구합72887
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. C engaged in truck transport business (hereinafter “B”) under the trade name of “B”, leased a car stude, including a driver’s license, necessary to install containers, to E engaged in container leasing business under the name of “D”, at the new construction site of an apartment built by the New Building and Construction Corporation in Seopo-si, Seopo-si (hereinafter “instant construction site”).

B. Around 11:57 on January 8, 2015, the deceased G (hereinafter “the deceased”) was engaged in the installation of a container by using a carcracs operated by I at the construction site of this case at the instant construction site. However, there was an accident that covers the deceased who was used in the container with the boom boom boom boom boom boom, and the deceased died due to multiple prolonged damage.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disaster”). C.

On July 9, 2015, the Plaintiff, the deceased’s spouse, claimed for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses to the Defendant, but the Defendant rendered a disposition not to pay survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses against the Plaintiff on the ground that the deceased does not constitute workers under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “Industrial Accident Insurance Act”) and the Labor Standards Act.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). 【The ground for recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, entry in Gap’s No. 1, 3, and 4, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was employed by C on November 201, and was paid KRW 400,000 per month in return for his direction, supervision, driving of cles under the supervision, and repair of vehicles. At the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff was involved in an accident in the installation of container operation at the construction site of the instant case, along with the driver’s number of JKacles, who owns C at the time of the instant accident, while installing a container operation at the construction site of the instant case, and the crackers separately owned by the deceased were employed and operated as a regular driver as well as the instant accident.

arrow