logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2014.09.30 2013구합29100
유족급여및장의비부지급처분취소
Text

1. On September 6, 2013, the Defendant revoked the disposition of bereaved family benefits and funeral site pay to the Plaintiff on September 6, 2013.

2...

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 9, 2012, the Plaintiff’s husband, as the representative director of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”), completed seminars supervised by D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) at the F Hotel located in Daejeon E-gu, Daejeon E-gu, and went back to the hotel room, a hotel, around 02:15, on November 10, 2012. On the same day, the Plaintiff was found to have died within the toilet bath room.

On the same day, on November 10, 2012, the deceased prepared a death report that the deceased’s body was presumed to have been fluent, and thereafter the autopsy was not conducted.

① The Deceased was working as a representative director of D, and the juristic person is an independent right holder of a separate legal personality. In full view of the certified transcript of corporate register, business registration certificate, employment contract with the employees affiliated with D, report on the formation of the insurance relationship, etc., the representative director falls under “employer” who exercises the power of representation of the juristic person concerned externally upon delegation of business from the juristic person,

(2) It is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relationship with the duties of the deceased on the ground that the deceased’s private person is an aesthetic state, and that there is no objective proof of changes in the work environment before death, or that there is no occupational fault or stress, etc., and it is difficult to recognize a causal relationship with the duties of the deceased on the ground

B. The Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for compensation for survivors and funeral expenses on September 6, 2013 that the deceased’s death constitutes occupational accidents. However, on September 6, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the decision to pay the site for the following reasons:

(hereinafter “Disposition of this case”). 【Disposition of this case’s ground for recognition of this case’s existence of no dispute, entry of Gap’s 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) is that of the deceased’s gender, D’s corporate register.

arrow