logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2018.04.12 2017구합69007
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. On July 15, 2016, the Plaintiff’s husband’s husband (hereinafter “the deceased”) entered a limited liability company C (hereinafter “instant company”) and performed piping-out duties at the site of DD Corporation (hereinafter “the instant site”) prior to the execution of the instant company. During the said construction period, the Plaintiff used the instant site accommodation provided by the instant company.

B. On September 6, 2016, the Deceased, while preparing for work, refers to the body of the decedent, who was frighten, and returned to the accommodation again.

After that, E, who is a worker of the deceased, shotly called the deceased, but did not receive the phone, and had other employees look at the deceased’s accommodation, and the said employees reported to the 119 first aid unit, which was unsalved by the deceased.

The Deceased was transferred to the Jeonbuk University Hospital through the 119 Emergency Medical Services Team, diagnosed as brain cerebrovascular (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”), received treatment in a middle-patient’s room. On September 22, 2016, the Deceased was transferred to a middle-patient’s hospital near her home and died on September 26, 2016.

A person directly in the death diagnosis report for the deceased is indicated as “cerebrovascular fee”, “cerebral cerebral side”, “cerebral side”, and the pre-dead deather as “cerebral cerebral cerebral eption.

C. The Plaintiff asserted that the deceased’s death constitutes occupational accidents, and filed a claim for the payment of bereaved family’s benefits and funeral expenses. However, on January 2, 2017, the Defendant confirmed on January 20, 201, that the deceased’s health insurance was diagnosed in detail at the Jeonbuk University Hospital and continued to undergo a periodic examination and pharmacologic treatment until the disaster occurred. In addition to the disaster alleged by the Plaintiff, the occurrence of the incident to the extent that the occurrence of a serious and unpredictable and unpredictable event may result in a tension with respect to the deceased’s work and a sudden work environment.

arrow