2012Gu 1932 Do 1932 Do 2012

A

Law Firm A

[Attorney A]

Ministry of Labor and Welfare

Representative B'the Chairman

Litigation Performers B

March 27, 2013

May 15, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of paying bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses against the Plaintiff on July 20, 2012 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 11, 1998, the Plaintiff’s husband (hereinafter referred to as “net”) joined the Busan Port Trade Union as a member of the Busan Port Trade Union, and worked at the Hubson, which is the head of the Busan Port Trade Union, paragraph (1) of the Busan Port Trade Union, and was in charge of string and sea-speeding of containers for the loading and unloading of containers at various container-only ports in Busan. B. The Deceased was removed from 20:0 on May 8, 2012 to 13:0 on the 20th day of May 9: 13: 1: from 200, to 2000, the Plaintiff was loaded at the 20th day of Busan Port Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “D”) from 20: from 20:0 to 25th day of loading and unloading containers from the 5th day of Busan Port 20th day of loading and unloading containers from the 25th day of the 20th day of the 20th day.

D. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant accident constitutes occupational accidents, and filed a claim for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses with the Defendant, but the Defendant, as a result of the investigation of the instant accident, presumed that the Deceased had engaged in fishing at the end of the instant wharf No. 61 within the 5th Hupson Terminal from Busan Port 5 to the end of the instant wharf. However, even if the Deceased did not explicitly prohibit his/her business owner from doing fishing, the Defendant issued a disposition of survivors’ benefits and funeral funeral site pay for the reason that it was a contingent, intangible private disaster that occurred during his/her work atmosphere (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case

A. The plaintiff's assertion

As the deceased’s terminal workers, such as the deceased, have a large waiting time due to their characteristics and the work hours are flexible, D shall allow workers to freely display their leisure hours during the atmosphere to the extent that they remain in the waiting room inside the work wharf or in the vicinity thereof. The instant disposition on a different premise is unlawful, even if the wharf facilities where the deceased’s lost places are in contact with the ship at night or in the vicinity of the weather is highly likely to be able to be able to be able to freely display their leisure hours during the atmosphere. Although the wharf facilities where the ship is in contact with the ship at the port of the ship, there was a high risk of being able to be able to be able to take off the wharf at the time of the instant accident without installing safety facilities, such as fall preventive facilities, warning, etc. at the time of the

(b) Fact of recognition;

1) The circumstances immediately before and immediately after the instant accident

A) On May 8, 2012, from around 22:00 to 23:10, the Deceased left a room to drink and drink by getting out from the beginning of the primary work, and then divided into two stories, namely, E, F, and G, at stores located at the entrance of the Hepson wharf. From around 23:30 on the same day to 23:40 on the same day, the Deceased left a room. The above work charges were all carried out to the old-age room at the entrance of the terminal, but the Deceased went to the end of the 61 line, and went to the old-age room at the end of the 61 line.

B) From around 02:00 on May 9, 2012 to around 03:00, H and I, the deceased’s volunteer staff member, had observed that the deceased viewed television at the atmosphere room of the Noranda, but thereafter, the deceased did not go again to the Noranda room No. 1 on around 04:50 on the same day. The deceased was found to have been on the sea at around 10m from May 8, 2012 to around 03:0 on May 9, 2012, when he left a container at around 61m of the same day and went to the sea near the stern, and the deceased was found to have been on the sea at the time of the deceased’s completion of the work. However, at around 23:00 on May 8, 2012 to around 40:0 on May 9, 2012, the deceased continued to have been on the water level of 1:5m from 20ms.

2) The deceased’s usual work is carried out during his waiting time.

Since the deceased's ordinary fishing was good, the deceased frequently worked in the vicinity of the 61st place where the time to rest in work would be well straw. Accordingly, the deceased frequently used the steering room once in the vicinity of the 61st line inside the Hubson Terminal, and the deceased's right to the goods in the warehouse adjacent to the rest room was acquired by the deceased.

3) Details of the survey conducted by the Busan Coast Guard on the cause of the deceased’s death

A) At the time of discovery, the Deceased was at the time of entry and coination, and the fishing line that has come up with the fishing market line was cut to the hand and body, and was attached to the fishing line with the marine floating material (e.g., the sea bed, vinyl, string, etc.) at the fishing market, and there was plastic candles in the right-hand part of the back part of the deceased, which was put up by the deceased.

B) On the end of the wharf 61st which the deceased presumed that he had been engaged in fishing, the deceased had been placed in the sea with a fishing net that he had caught after fishing. On the back of the slaughter net, the deceased had been found to have been engaged in fishing and reflect-rating locks that appear to have been used by the deceased.

C) According to the result of the autopsy conducted by the J on the deceased’s body, the private person is presumed to be next to death in view of the characteristics and circumstances of the body.

4) The installation and management status of the wharf facilities are not installed at the end of 61 lines and near the wharf No. 62, the 62 lines are not installed for the prevention of fall, but there are emergency safety ladders to open the wharf to the wharf at the sea in preparation for unexpected circumstances. Safety ladders installed between the 61 lines and the 62 lines are destroyed to the extent of half, and the bridge between the 62 lines and the 63 lines are lost.

【Ground of recognition” without any dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, testimony of a witness injury and disease decoration, and the result of each fact-finding conducted by this court to Busan Regional Meteorological Administration and the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., the entire purport of the arguments is as follows.

It is as shown in the attached Form.

D. Determination

1) Even if the act of a worker during a recess is related to the provision of labor after the end of the recess hours, it is basically guaranteed that the worker freely uses the recess hours, and thus, it cannot be deemed under the control and management of the ordinary business owner. Thus, in order for the worker to be recognized as an occupational accident if the worker was killed while doing any act using the facilities within the business place during the recess hours, such act must be deemed as an act of the worker in question, an act of the worker in question, a preparatory or liquidation of his business, a physiological act recognized as an incidental to the act, or a reasonable necessary act, or a case where the process of such act is under the control and management of the business owner, or a case where the worker suffered the injury due to the defect

(See Supreme Court Decision 95Nu14633 delivered on August 23, 1996).

2) However, the above facts acknowledged by considering the overall purport of the arguments, namely, the deceased she enjoyed a plastic line during the normal waiting time. Even after the first work, the deceased she drinked to drink and she would run up to the air room once, and the deceased's right in the warehouse adjacent to the old air room was acquired by the deceased. At the time of discovery, the deceased she was released from both hands and body, and the fishing line her fishing line her to the upper right side of the deceased her fishing line was cut up to 1: 61: 1: 2. 3: from the 60th end of the fishing line to the 5th end of the fishing line, the deceased was found to have been stored at the sea of the deceased 1:5: 3: 5: The deceased she was found to have been used at the sea of the deceased 1:5: 1: 25: 3: The deceased she was found to have been used at the sea of the deceased.

If the accident of this case occurred during the waiting period from the first and second works to the second works of the deceased, it is difficult to view that the above act of the deceased is merely a private act unrelated to the deceased's work, such as the deceased's container gambling and piracy work, and preparation for or reorganization for the work, physiological act recognized as incidental to the work under social norms, or a reasonable necessary act, or a case where the process of such act can be seen as being under the control and management of the business owner.

In addition, in order to have caused a disaster due to the defect of the wharf facilities, which is the place where the deceased died, or the neglect of the management of the wharf facilities, the actions of the deceased and the failure to manage the wharf facilities, should have occurred in the event of the occurrence of the accident. This case appears to have occurred due to the deceased’s arbitrary actions, and even if the safety bridge near the 61st line and the 62th line was partially damaged, it is difficult to view the installation and management responsibility of the wharf facilities as the business owner, and it is difficult to view that the defect of such facilities or failure to manage the facilities was the cause of the accident of this case.

Therefore, since there is no proximate causal relation between the deceased’s work and the accident of this case, the defendant’s disposition of this case is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges, white leaves