logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2014.08.27 2013구합2000102
유족급여및장의비부지급처분취소
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. From February 7, 2011, the deceased B (CB; hereinafter “the deceased”) worked as an employee affiliated with D(E) who is an enterprise that has been awarded a subcontract for the maintenance and repair of facilities and equipment from the Korea glass Industry Co., Ltd. located in Gunsan-si.

B. On October 19, 201, around 13:25, the Deceased was killed while performing the work of installing steel stairs at the studio 2nd floor underground in the heating room with the studio F at the studio 2nd floor of the Korea glass Industry Co., Ltd., and died while being transferred to the hospital.

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

As a result of the autopsy on the deceased, the private person was found to be a severe death due to herthic disease.

On December 12, 2011, the Plaintiff, the deceased’s spouse, claimed that the instant accident constituted an occupational accident, and claimed the payment of bereaved family’s benefits and funeral expenses.

E. On February 3, 2012, the Defendant rejected the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses on the ground that the Gwangju Occupational Disease Determination Committee (as a result of reviewing the content of duties, period of service, medical records, the doctor’s opinion, advisory opinion, etc., conducted ordinary duties prior to the date of accident, and there is no proximate causal relation between duties and death because of the absence of confirming occupational or stress likely to cause death) rendered a judgment on February 3, 2012.

(hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"). / [Grounds for recognition] The entry of Gap's 1, 2, 5, 7, and Eul's 1, 3, and 4 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the intensity of the work was higher than any other time, such as taking the steel stairs approximately 80 km from the high temperature of about 30 cc, at the underground workplace with US sand dust, not through wind on the date of the instant accident, and having approximately 30 cc away from the high temperature of about 30 cc., and the highest time during the point of occupation.

arrow