logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2019.03.07 2017구합75309
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 September 2, 199, the Plaintiff’s husband (her husband) served as a bus driver of C, and received a decision on medical care benefits from the Defendant (hereinafter “the decision on medical care in this case”) on November 30, 201, on the ground that the “brain color and nene bomic light (hereinafter “approval injury and disease”), which occurred during bus operation, was recognized as an occupational accident, and received a decision on November 30, 2001 through the period of medical care from September 4, 199 to November 30, 201.

B. B was diagnosed by D Hospital on September 3, 2014 as “ chronic kidney diseases caused by the new function under the supervision of the hospital,” and the symptoms of the disease have deteriorated, and died upon the suspension of cardiopulmonary function due to the chronic renal failure on April 25, 2016.

(hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”). (c)

On August 5, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the deceased died due to an occupational accident, and filed a claim for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses with the Defendant. However, on August 5, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition of survivors’ benefits and funeral funeral expenses (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that there was no causal link between the deceased’s death and his/her work due to the aggravation of chronic renal failure, etc.

The Plaintiff, dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a request for reexamination to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, but received a decision to dismiss the request for reexamination on May 19, 2017.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's No. 1, 2, 3, Eul's evidence No. 1 and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion has been receiving a long-term medical treatment due to an approved injury, and where one of the approved injury of the deceased occurs due to divestrophism, it may cause damage to the function of kidne due to dives, etc., and the chronic part of the neves-proof disease.

arrow