(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.09.19 2017누46716

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.09.19 2017누46716

유족급여및장의비부지급처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The court's explanation concerning this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following to the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this case is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

On the 5th page of the judgment of the first instance, the following is added to the fourth part of the judgment. ① The Plaintiff asserts that the deceased’s 24 hours-day-day-work itself corresponds to a road.

However, the security service is relatively low in the density of labor, and even though it is 24 hours of work on a shooting basis, it can take a rest day on a day following the working day, and even on the working day, it cannot be concluded that the deceased's 24 hours-day-day-day-day-day-day-day-day-work itself falls under excess.

The first instance judgment No. 5, 8, added the following to “only ...................... The Deceased had been suffering from insulin treatment, etc. for about 10 years from urology, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the death of the Deceased was due to the progress of such a urgical disease, and that the above urgical disease was in progress at a normal speed due to occupational tasks, etc.

On the 5th page of the first instance judgment, the following is added to the witness E of the first instance trial (In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the testimony of witness E of the first instance trial, the deceased may only be recognized as having not been subject to dismissal or reduction since he/she was employed on the recommendation of a superior manager and did not work for one year after he/she started his/her work.)

2. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

-행정소송법 제8조 제2항

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2018.05.01 2017누90669

-서울고등법원 2018.07.17 2018누30619

-서울고등법원 2018.11.06 2018누39777

-서울고등법원 2018.05.15 2017누79921

-서울고등법원 2018.07.17 2018누45376