logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.07.14 2016구합57533
유족급여및장의비부지급처분취소
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 November 21, 2014, the Plaintiff’s life-based net B (hereinafter “the deceased”) sent a large quantity of alcoholic beverages to the hospital by inhaleing a fire that occurred at around 02:50 on November 22, 2014 (hereinafter “the instant fire”), but on the same day, the Plaintiff died at around 03:16 on the same day.

On January 19, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses with the Defendant. However, on March 31, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition of survivors’ benefits and funeral funeral expenses (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “the death of the deceased is caused by a fire by a cigarette, and does not constitute an accident that is caused by a defect in facilities or negligence in management, and does not meet the standards for recognition of occupational accidents” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

【In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, and the purport of the entire argument as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case, the deceased alleged as to whether the disposition of this case is legitimate, was done by taking advantage of the alcohol and food provided by the business owner, and the deceased used the accommodation provided by the business owner with specific instructions. Thus, the deceased’s taking advantage of the accommodation of this case was under the control and management of the business owner, as it was the preparation for the act of business or incidental acts.

In addition, the business owner neglected the overall management of the instant lodging facilities, such as not giving the deceased who first uses the instant lodging facilities the attention of smoking tobacco inside the lodging facilities, not preparing protective equipment against the accident situation, etc. In addition, the business owner neglected the overall management of the lodging facilities of this case. Since the deceased’s failure to evacuate to fire is a big cause for drinking at the meeting, the deceased’s death is neglected to manage the lodging facilities of this case.

arrow