logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2016.06.30 2016구합5208
유족급여 및 장의비 부지급 처분취소
Text

1. The disposition that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on August 10, 2015 as bereaved family benefits and funeral site wages shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

Reasons

Details of the disposition

A. From November 3, 2014, the Plaintiff’s husband B (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s husband”) worked as a forest fire prevention unit in the D Management Office (hereinafter “instant Management Office”).

B. On March 21, 2015, the Deceased was driven by, and withdrawn from, the E-learning Motor Vehicle (hereinafter “instant Motor Vehicle”) owned by the Deceased on March 15:20, 2015, the Deceased was driving in the direction of the Busan High-gu Busan High-dong, and the driver’s seat of the F Motor Vehicle parked on the front side of the Geum-gu, Busan High-gu, Geumpo-gu, Geumpo-dong, where the driver’s seat of the F Motor Vehicle was parked in the direction of the F Motor Vehicle in the direction of the Busan High-gu, Busan High-gu, and died as “damage to the G Hospital” at around that time.

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

On June 3, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the deceased’s death constituted an occupational accident and filed a claim for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses with the Defendant on August 10, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition of survivors’ benefits and funeral funeral expenses (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “The deceased died of the instant accident during the course of leaving the deceased by using the instant vehicle under the control of the deceased, and the location of the accident occurred is a general road outside the workplace and the workplace, and the instant vehicle cannot be deemed as a means of transport provided by the business owner or any other means corresponding thereto, and there was no work performed under the direction of the business owner or manager during leaving the workplace, and thus, the instant accident cannot be deemed an occupational accident.”

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (if there is a satisfy number, including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

arrow