logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2019.05.17 2018구합67008
유족급여및장의비부지급처분취소
Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From April 8, 2017, the deceased C (D students, hereinafter “the deceased”) is a person who worked at the F stores in E in permanent residence (hereinafter “instant workplace”).

B. On April 11, 2017, around 23:00 permanent residence, the Deceased was driving an IM car, which is a vehicle for delivery at the instant workplace (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) on the 4th line adjacent to H University located in G, and at the same time, an accident that conflicts with the central separation unit, etc. (hereinafter “instant accident”).

The Deceased sent back to a nearby hospital, but died on April 12, 2017, such as 00:50, 2012.

C. The Plaintiffs, parents of the Deceased, asserted that the death of the Deceased constitutes occupational accidents, and claimed the Defendant to pay bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses.

On March 8, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition of the bereaved family’s benefits and funeral site expenses (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “the deceased did not have worked in the instant workplace on the date of the instant accident, and died while driving the instant vehicle from the business owner after the completion of the business, and the instant accident is insufficient to be recognized as an accident that occurred during the course of performing his/her duties.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 11, Eul evidence 1 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the witness J's testimony and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The business owner of the instant workplace asserted by the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “the instant business owner”) stated to the effect that “the deceased did not have worked in the instant workplace on the date of the instant accident, and the instant workplace had already been closed at the time of the instant accident, and that “the deceased had been in the instant workplace to provide meals is merely driving the instant vehicle in order to provide string straw, etc., but there was a statement on some factual relations.”

arrow