logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2014.02.07 2012구합40353
유족급여부지급처분취소
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 October 17, 201, the Plaintiff’s ASEAN (hereinafter “the deceased”) was an employee of C, and was killed at around 11:05 on October 18, 201, in the course of driving a D truck owned by the business owner (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) and carrying composts into the F farm located in Gohap-gun, Gyeongcheon-gun, and loading them with the vehicle. In short, the Plaintiff was killed on October 18, 201.

The instant special agreement strengthened the content of the existing “self-physical accident security” as it compensates the insured for the loss when the insured died or sustained bodily injury due to an accident that occurred during the possession, use, or management of the insured motor vehicle.

It is similar to the "self-physical accident security" that is not joined in duplicate, and the alternative part except the scope of compensation, etc. is similar to the "self-physical accident security".

Scope of compensation: Amount calculated according to the standard for payment of insurance proceeds = Amount of deduction (amount eligible for compensation by vehicle insurance I and personal compensation II), amount of compensation already received by the insured by a third party who is not a liable for compensation, etc., and the amount already received by the insured, etc.)

B. The Plaintiff received total of KRW 193,304,360 from Samsung Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (14,838,080, 466,280, consolation money, KRW 45,000, funeral money, KRW 3,000,00, in accordance with the automobile accident insurance agreement (hereinafter “the instant special agreement”) that uses the instant vehicle as an insurable automobile in relation to the said accident. The main content of the instant special agreement is as follows.

C. The Plaintiff asserted that the deceased’s death constitutes occupational accidents and claimed for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses to the Defendant, and the Defendant on May 2012.

arrow