logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.11.09 2017구합56780
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. On December 1, 2006, the Plaintiff’s husband B (hereinafter “the deceased”) entered the Mine Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the instant company”) located in Ansan-si, Annsung-si (hereinafter “the instant company”) to find out the corner portion of the concrete packaging road, which is a heavy equipment.

B. On October 31, 2013, the Deceased carried out work in the summer City and accommodated in the inn, and on November 1, 2013, around 06:52 on the following day, the Deceased died as “the right tunnel wall to the left-hand side (including the acute heart fluor)” while driving a 5 ton tr within the 1st, 1st, 2013, in the 1st, 1st, 2013, while driving a troper on the road at the 1st, 2006:52, the 1st, 2013.

C. On January 20, 2017, the Plaintiff claimed bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses to the Defendant, but the Defendant rendered a disposition on January 20, 2017 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) ordering the Plaintiff to determine the amount of bereaved family benefits and funeral funeral expenses on the ground that “In light of the duty to relocate the deceased’s death, it is difficult to deem that the burden factors (e.g., a sudden change of work environment, a sudden increase in work volume, excessive stress, etc.) to the extent of causing the death were confirmed to have performed ordinary work and that it is difficult to deem that the hours prior to the outbreak were excessive to the occurrence, and that it is difficult to recognize the proximate causal relation between the work and the cause of the death, rather than the work-related factors.”

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is 1.1 per month in an inferior working environment where machine noise, dust, and road accidents are exposed to danger.

arrow