logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2014.04.17 2013구합8097
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 February 27, 1979 to December 31, 1984, the Plaintiff’s husband (CB, hereinafter “the deceased”) retired after serving as a mining source at the Gangnam Mining Center (hereinafter “instant company”) of the Republic of Korea glass Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the instant company”).

B. As a result of the close inspection on March 11, 2004, the Deceased was determined at Grade 13 of the disability grade as “type 1/1, and cardiopulmonary function F0 (Abnormal).” On March 28, 2008, as a result of the close inspection, the Deceased died on January 1, 2012, when he/she was under medical care treatment at the D Hospital as “mick-type 1/0, cardiopulmonary function pulmonary function F1/2 (minor disability), complication, and propulmonary lung cancer.”

망인에 대한 사망진단서에는 직접사인이 ‘폐혈증성 쇽’, 중간선행사인이 ‘폐렴’, 선행사인이 ‘진폐증’이라고 각 기재되어 있다.

C. On July 30, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses by asserting that the deceased’s death constituted an occupational accident, but the Defendant rendered a disposition to refuse the payment on the ground that “the deceased’s death was caused by the aggravation of his or her death, but his or her death was determined to have caused the debrison’s debris,” and thus, the deceased’s death did not constitute a proximate causal relation with his or her death symptoms or its merger (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

In response to the instant disposition, the Plaintiff filed a request for examination against the Defendant, but the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s request after deliberation by the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Review Committee on December 20, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

가. 원고의 주장 망인은 분진작업에 종사하면서 얻은 진폐증으로 인하여 발생한 합병증인 폐렴이 폐혈증성 쇽을 일으켜...

arrow