logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.04.09 2013구단10505
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. From July 2006, the Plaintiff’s husband (hereinafter “the deceased”) entered a three-dimensional industrial company, a company established in the ceiling, etc. of a building, etc. (hereinafter “non-party company”) and worked as a field worker from September 1, 2012, while working as a production worker, the Plaintiff’s husband, who was the husband of the Plaintiff, went through the installation of a facility ethics and exchange wind at the ICOP factory located in the Gangnam-gu ICOP, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, on February 30, 2013, and complained of the same fee C.

Since the deceased's face has not been opened, and C lost his own consciousness and sent to the hospital by using a vehicle for 119 first aid, and died at around 10:50 during the transmission.

As a result of the autopsy, the deceased’s private person was found to be “Mocambling (mergers with heart voltages; hereinafter “the injury and disease of this case”)”.

B. On August 9, 2013, in relation to the Plaintiff’s application for the payment of compensation for survivors and funeral expenses, the Defendant rendered a disposition of compensation for survivors and funeral expenses (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on August 9, 2013, stating that “The proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff’s duties and the injury and injury is not acknowledged as a result of examination of the duties, period of service, medical records, video materials, the doctor’s opinion, opinion of advisory opinion, etc. as a private person, to the extent that the injury and injury to the applicant is insufficient to cause the injury and injury to the industry”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Nonparty Company, from 08:00 to 18:00, performed the work of installing a facility duct and a sprink for six days per week, and it was frequently engaged in works on Sundays or nights due to a lot of work, and the workplace is scattered in various areas, leaving the place of work to the outside, and is on the night or a new wall.

arrow