2020Guhap63931 Revocation of revocation of the payment of bereaved family's benefits and funeral expenses

*

*

on March 23, 2021

April 20, 2021

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

A disposition of bereaved family's benefits and funeral expenses made by the defendant against the plaintiff ○○○○ shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The deceased C (hereinafter “the deceased”) who is a de facto spouse of the Plaintiff’s de facto marriage (*.*.1953.**.*.1.) was diagnosed by the Defendant as follows: (a) the so-called 'the so-called 'the so-called 'the so-called 'the so-called 'the so-called 'the so-called 'the so-called 'the so-called 'the so-called 'the so-called 'the so-called 'the approved 'the so-called 'the so-called 'the so-called 'the so-called 'the so-called 'the so-called 'the so-called 'the so-called 'the '○○○○' medical care was terminated; and (b) No. 1 grade 8 (the 'the two ridges') of the disability grade was judged.

B. The Deceased died of ○○○○ who was under 64 years of age due to brain farming. After undergoing brain surgery, the Deceased died of ○○○○○.

C. The Plaintiff asserted that “the cause of death of the deceased is recognized as a causal relationship between the death of the deceased and the approved branch of the instant case, so the death of the deceased constitutes an occupational accident,” and filed a claim for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses with the Defendant, but the Defendant rendered a disposition that the “○○○○○” does not have a medical proximate causal relationship between the death of the deceased on the approved branch of the instant case and the death of the deceased on the ground that “the medical causal relationship between the death

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Even after the completion of medical treatment, the Deceased continued to undergo the control of pharmacologic treatment and brupting bombing in accordance with the preventive management system, such as the merger under Article 77 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “Industrial Accident Insurance Act”) due to the death of the Deceased.

2) At the bottom where the deceased received the above ○○○○ Mymnacus, infection was discovered by lusium lusium lusium lusium (MRA, Metcis-Rocus Alusium Alusium (hereinafter “the instant lusium”). The deceased diagnosed ○○○○ Mymnacus, and died of ○○○○○○○ without recovery after undergoing ○○ ○○ ○○ each brain operation.

3) On the part of the luminous lusium, which was received for prevention such as complication with respect to the state of disability caused by the instant approved injury, infection caused by the instant germs, and the brain farming was caused, and the deceased died due to the said brain farming.

4) 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) Fact of recognition;

1) Details of medical care related to the instant approved injury and disease

The Deceased had been subject to ○○○○○ Lighting, and ○○ ○○○○○○ Medical Care was completed. After that, the Deceased continued to have been subject to ○○ Lighting Control.

2) Existing medical records of the Deceased

According to the results of the deceased’s health insurance medical examination, the deceased has been treated several times from the time of the above occupational accident to the time of the disease, and its main contents are as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

3) Deceased’s catitis, brain operation, and death

The Deceased was diagnosed on the part of the department, which received ○○○○ ○○○ Bablution, with an hye infection by the germs of this case. After that, the Deceased was diagnosed with an ○○ ○○ ○○ Ma○ Ma○ Ma○ Ma○ Ma○ Ma○ Ma○ Ma○ Ma○○ Ma○ Ma○ Ma○ Ma○ Ma○ Ma○ Mana

A person shall be appointed.

4) The defendant's non-approval of additional medical care

A) On behalf of the deceased, on January 9, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for re-treatment of brain farming before the deceased’s death. However, the Defendant rejected an application for re-treatment on the ground that “○○○○○○○○○○○○○ was caused by cardiopulmonary infection, which is a personal disease of the deceased, rather than the instant approved disease.”

B) Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a request for review with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Review Committee, but the said Committee dismissed the said request for review on the same grounds as the above non-approval. The Plaintiff appealed to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Review Committee, but the said Committee dismissed the said request for review on the same grounds as the above non-approval.

(v) medical opinions

A) Opinions of advice regarding the application for additional medical care

(1) One adviser;

The Deceased on the Symar Sym Mymar Symar, the state of lower half half his body or consciousness, and the state of nutrition is good.

It is recorded that the deceased has been treated as a personal disease such as a non-major heart disease before the disaster, a fluoral heart disease, a high blood pressure, and a fluoral transfusion. Since he/she received continuous medical treatment from 2014 due to the cardiopulmonary fluorial infection, it is difficult to recognize the relationship with his/her duties because there is a high possibility that brain farming has occurred due to the merger.

(2) 2 of advice

No basis exists for the aggravation of the approved disease of this case, and brain farming and cerebral dystrophism shall be fry;

Since it is irrelevant to the approved branch of this case, and there is a fact that the medical care was continuously provided to ○○○○ due to the heart and infectious infection in light of the details of the health insurance, it is highly likely that the brain farming and the cerebral cerebral eption have occurred.

(3) Three advisory services;

The Deceased is confirmed to have received medical treatment due to the existing disease as an Abrymic heart infection.

In this regard, brain farming is an injury or disease that occurred in relation to cardio-resistant infection, and it is difficult to find medical correlations with the approved branches of this case that occurred in ○○○○○.

B) Opinions on advice relating to the instant case

A private person of the deceased is an injury or disease caused by brain farming and waste collection in the death certificate.

C) Results of inquiries into the head of the O hospital

On May 23, 2014, the Deceased was operated to replace his/her crypter and his/her crypter with his/her machine board and remove all infected tissues from all infected tissues.

On January 30, 2015, ○ Deceased was in the state of heart in which the heart was not bad, the function of the heart was good, and the heart was in the state of treatment due to the lack of in-depth infection.

In the absence of long-term medical care or immunity, the possibility of brain farming has been significantly diminished.

D) Results of entrustment of appraisal of medical records to the director of Seoul Medical Center

(1) The plaintiff's response to the appraisal of the case

○ The Deceased was in a state of brupting, and in such a state of brupting, the instant case

Inasmuch as germs was found, it is presumed that the deceased's infection was caused by the cause of the death. However, it cannot be confirmed specifically whether the infection was started due to the connection with the luminous dust.

After the brain operation with respect to the deceased, ○○○○○○○○ malone (the body size extracted from brain farming) performed bombation. However, other germs than Stretococus zironii (Streptocus gcocus) have not been observed, and even though myiation was performed, fung was not observed. In addition, ○○○○○ maration test did not spread bomoma bomoma. In other words, the bomb was not observed at a place where the bombine bomb was raised in the bombus of the deceased. In other words, the bomb in question was not observed at a place where the bombine bombine was raised in the bombus of the deceased.

○○○○○○○○○ Hospital’s heart-Mocul CT and ○○○○○○○○ Hospital ples

According to the reading opinion of the Plaintiff’s general X-ray photograph, the abnormal operational opinion was not observed at the time. However, according to the record of the hospitalization of the Plaintiff’s NU Hospital, the ○○○○○○ Hospital’s right side of the deceased was in a state where the possibility of pulmonary cancer was high (at that time, the pulmonary tissue test was conducted to take account of the deceased’s condition at the time, and the guardian did not want to take active treatment, and thus the pulmonary necessity law was implemented. The above pulmonary disease is meaningful after the completion of the medical treatment. Furthermore, it is logical to view that the pulmonary disease, which is a personal disease, was in a meaningful way after the completion of the medical treatment. Moreover, the pulmonary disease, nephical pressure, high blood pressure, blood transfusion, and 00○○○ Hospital’s cardiopulmonary disease treatment and surgery, there was a concern that the pulmonary disease might have been seriously affected by pulmonary infection at the time of ○○○○○○○’s disease.

According to the ○○○ Emergency Nursing Records on the Deceased, the Deceased may have multi-exploitable aggregate.

It seems that he had the past history of species such as Alleyam and Mulle mymoma, and the diverology is presumed to have a significant impact on the deceased's immunity.

○ Amalopyal and Amalopymal cancer, after the completion of medical care, or after the instant approved injury and disease.

It is logical to view that the two sides were progress without relation, and the above two sides were more meaningful and reasonable than the approved disease of this case. In other words, it is presumed that the outbreak of brain farming, which is the cause of the death of the deceased, had a more meaningful impact on the immunity by the above two sides.

(2) The defendant's response to the appraisal of the case

According to the health insurance medical records of the deceased, the deceased’s chest outside and last margin.

In ○○○○○ Hospital, which is a medical day, received medical treatment several times due to the in-depth corrosion of detailed unknown body and the in-depth corrosion of the detailed lacul, etc., and it is difficult to view that the deceased was a healthy condition because of the complete exclusion of the in-depth infection known as a risk factor of brain farming.

As ○○ Deceased has the ability to spathn infection and had the ability to undergo the spathn operation due to heart diseases, there is a possibility that brain farming has occurred due to a personal disease of the Deceased.

C. Determination

1) The term “occupational accident” as referred to in 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 accident during the course of performing his/her duties. As such, there is a causal relationship between his/her occupational accident and the occurrence of the occupational accident. In such cases, the causal relationship between the employee’s occupational accident and the death caused by the disease or the disease should be attested by the claimant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du8204, Jan. 31, 2008). In cases where a new occupational accident occurred during the medical care due to occupational accident, in order to view such new occupational accident as an occupational accident, at least a causal relationship between the new occupational accident and the new occupational accident should be found. The causal relationship between the occupational accident and the occupational accident should be determined only when there is a new occupational accident due to the injury, disease, or side effect of medicine or treatment method (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Du1914, etc.).

2) Based on these legal principles, in light of the following circumstances that can be seen by adding up the above facts of recognition and the purport of the entire arguments as seen earlier, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that brain farming has occurred to the deceased due to the deceased’s previous occupational accident and the instant approved injury and injury, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is difficult to accept.

① First of all, we examine the Plaintiff’s assertion that brain farming has occurred due to the thopule found on the part of the deceased who received luminous damage treatment. As seen earlier, after the brain operation on the deceased, ○○○○○ ○○ ○○○○ performed fluoral cultivation and fluoral cultivation on the body extracted from the cerebral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral, but no other fluoral fluoral fluor other fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluor. In other words, the fluoral fluoral fluoral fluor was found only on the bluoral bluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral flus

② The in-flight infection is known to be the major risk of brain farming. However, prior to the occupational accident of the deceased at ○○○○○○○○, the deceased has been treated as having been given medical treatment due to various existing diseases related to blood and hearts, such as high blood pressure, blood transfusion, cardiopulmonary disease, and heart heart, and all of the ○○○○ infectious infection infection was replaced with a mechanical board and was performed to remove all the infected tissues. Since the deceased continued to undergo medical treatment due to cardiopulmonary and cardiopulmonary infection after the operation, it is reasonable for the deceased to have caused brain farming due to cardiopulmonary infection, which is an existing disease of the deceased.

③ As long as there is no spawn which is meaningful in the outbreak of brain farming from the body fluid extracted from brain farming of the deceased, it is possible to have a certain degree of impact on the spawn outbreak caused by existing obstacles of the deceased.

However, on the other hand, the deceased is on the right-hand side of ○○○, a time of brain farming diagnosis.

Since the disease suspected as a pulmonary cancer has been discovered, and there was a disease diagnosed as a dystrophal dystrophymosis in the past, such a malicious disease of the deceased also seems to have adversely influenced the mmunity of the deceased. Such circumstance also seems to be difficult to see that the death of the deceased was caused by the approved disease of this case.

3. Conclusion

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