logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2018.06.14 2017구합73136
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. The deceased B (hereinafter “the deceased”) who is the spouse of the Plaintiff is a person who was employed as a director and a senior research manager since he entered the D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) on July 1, 2007.

B. From 10:00 on February 29, 2016 to March of the work conference, the Deceased complained of acute clothes while moving to the laboratory, and was transferred to the emergency room of the 119 Emergency Medical Center at 10:47 by the 119 Rescue Team.

C. As a result of the deceased’s inspection, non-fluoral beer fever was confirmed, and the deceased was killed at the above hospital at around 19:08, even though he/she received non-fluoral beeral beer and chromosomes through blood he/sheculing.

The death diagnosis report on the deceased is written by a direct producer, an intermediate carrier, and a pre-explosioner in the same sort, and the pre-explosion.

On April 1, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses. However, on July 1, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision on the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral site expenses (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “In the case of non-fluorcing socing soft, most of the occurrence occurred due to external shock, and in the case of self-explosion, the occurrence cause of the outbreak was not clearly identified, and there is no ground to deem that the occupational route or stress contributed to the occurrence of the outbreak and no causal relationship with the death is recognized.”

E. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for examination with the Defendant, but the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for examination on December 5, 2016 on the ground that it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relationship between the deceased’s death and his/

F. On February 15, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee. However, the said Committee did not have any grounds for the occurrence of the non-pharmaceuticals, the prior death of the deceased on March 31, 2017, which is the cause of hazardous chemicals in medical and literature, and up to now.

arrow