logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2015.08.25 2014구단749
유족급여부지급처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

Details of the disposition

On September 24, 1997, the deceased B (hereinafter “the deceased”), who is the husband of the Plaintiff, worked as the steel hole from Dongbu Construction Co., Ltd. as the steel hole. On March 16, 1998, the deceased felled from the street while the steel was installed in March 16, 1998.

As a result, ‘the 2nd Anthrasium, the rupture, the rupture rupture, the rupture rupture, the rupture ruptures, the ruptures of the rupture 2, 3, and 4th square meters, the upper right-hand ruptures, the upper right-hand ruptures, the upper left-hand ruptures, the first-hand ruptures of the upper right-hand ruptures, etc.' (hereinafter referred to as “adupturely approved diseases”) were caused, and the treatment was completed on March 21, 2006, and the disability benefits were paid thereafter.

On August 31, 2010, the Deceased was diagnosed as “Maump”.

After that, on December 2, 2013, the Deceased died of the Madam as a direct death.

Accordingly, on January 29, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses on the ground that the deceased’s death constitutes occupational accidents. However, on April 28, 2014, the Defendant rendered a land-based disposition on the ground that there was no proximate causal relation with the previous approval branch.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). (hereinafter “instant disposition”), without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, and 8 (including partial identification numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion of legality of the overall disposition of the pleadings, the deceased used drugs for treatment of occupational diseases for about 8 years from 1998 to 2006, and was under severe mental stress due to lack of work even after the completion of treatment, and was unable to properly provide meals due to restriction on physical activities.

As such, the death of the deceased is not recognized as an occupational accident, since the long-term use of drugs, inorganic meals, stress, etc. caused by occupational accidents in the past.

arrow