logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.03.23 2016구합70215
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 May 23, 1998, the Plaintiff’s husband’s husband (CB, hereinafter “the deceased”) entered the Samwon Management Industry and entered the Defendant’s business accident and received medical care on June 7, 2007 after obtaining approval from the Defendant, and completed the medical care on June 25, 2007. (B) On February 25, 2008, the deceased was determined as class 2 5 of the disability grade. The deceased’s husband’s “the second approved injury” (hereinafter “the second approved injury”). The first approved injury and the first approved injury and the first approved injury and the first was determined as the medical care on October 13, 2010 after receiving medical care.

C. On March 4, 2015, the Deceased was transferred to D Hospital on the ground of the decline in food and clothing around 23:40 on March 4, 2015, and received cardiopulmonary resuscitation, but died on the following day on the grounds presumed to be “emergency heart funeral.”

The Plaintiff asserted that the deceased’s death constitutes an occupational accident and filed a claim for survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses with the Defendant. However, on September 11, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that it is difficult to recognize the causal relationship between the deceased’s death and the deceased’s death on the recognition of the instant case.

E. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a request for review with the Board of Audit and Inspection, but the Board of Audit and Inspection dismissed the request on June 7, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 8, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was caused by urology as well as immunodeficiencya while giving medical treatment more than 17 years after having suffered occupational accidents on May 23, 1998, which led to the weakeningasis of physical function, and the imbalances caused by climatic damage, and urology included in urology.

arrow