logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.09.01 2017누35440
유족급여 및 장의비 부지급처분 취소
Text

All appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment by this court as stated in paragraph (2). Thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Additional determination by this Court

A. In full view of the following facts: (a) the deceased asserted before the instant accident had no spath and had been relatively healthy; (b) due to the demand for excessive reduction of construction period to the site of this case, the deceased was exposed to extreme surgery and stress; and (c) the deceased’s duties on the instant site were overpatientd and did not undergo hospitalized treatment due to excessive stress around August 17, 2015, three days before the date on which the death was used; and (d) the deceased’s health continued to worsen, such as the decline of the body’s resistance due to extreme stress and extreme stress, and the outbreak of the mathy and the death of the deceased’s work and the death of the instant case. As such, proximate causal relation is acknowledged between the deceased’s death and the death of the instant case.

B. The above allegations made by the plaintiffs in this court do not differ from the contents of the first instance trial. However, in light of the circumstances cited earlier and the following circumstances acknowledged by this court based on the evidence presented in the first instance trial and the above evidence, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the deceased died of this case due to stress arising from excessive work, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently.

The first instance judgment rejecting the plaintiffs' claims is justifiable.

1 Deceased’s work at around 06:50 and retired from work at around 20:0, and work for up to 01:00 a day before the date used as the instant case. Around the instant case, the Deceased did not receive diagnosis and hospitalized treatment.

arrow