logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.07.13 2016구합66889
유족급여및장의비부지급처분취소
Text

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. B is a person who carries on a fish-net manufacturing business with the trade name of D in the inn city C from November 4, 2004 (hereinafter “instant place of business”).

B. The network E (hereinafter “the deceased”) is a person who operates a secondhand Award in F at the time of leisure.

On September 23:20, 2014, the Deceased suffered pictures from a fire that was caused by an explosion of a testamentary gift generated from the paint and the trial as an insular source while he/she worked together with B and B’s wife G at the warehouse on the above water (hereinafter “instant warehouse”).

(hereinafter “instant accident.” The Deceased immediately transferred to a hospital, but died by using emull image on September 26, 2014.

C. On April 7, 2015, the Plaintiff, the deceased’s spouse, filed a claim for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses (hereinafter “instant claim”) with the Defendant, claiming that “The deceased’s death constitutes occupational accidents, as he/she died of the instant accident while making the deceased’s cryping work as a daily worker at the instant workplace.”

On June 17, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition of survivors’ benefits and funeral allowance (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the deceased cannot be deemed an employee under the Labor Standards Act.”

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion summary is a daily worker who receives KRW 80,000 per day in return for the water dyeing work at the instant workplace, and died of the instant accident.

Therefore, the instant disposition on the ground that the deceased is not a worker at the workplace of this case is unlawful.

B. The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

C. (A) Article 5 Subparag. 2 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act provides that “worker refers to an employee under the Labor Standards Act” and Article 2(1)1 of the Labor Standards Act refers to an employee.

arrow