logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2015.11.20 2015구합67618
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. B was enrolled in C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) on April 11, 201, and served as a director at the Busan branch office.

B. B, around 19:30 on July 23, 2012, at the headquarters office of the instant company located in 506, the head office of the Seoul Yasan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant building”) consulted with the president E and the executiveF on his/her retirement issues.

C. After completing the foregoing consultation, E, after leaving the F job, B fells into the floor of an outdoor parking lot through the window of the president room (hereinafter “instant accident”). D.

B was immediately transmitted to a hospital, but at 21:25 on the same day, died of a low blood relative shock.

(hereinafter “the instant death”). E.

On June 26, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition of bereaved family benefits and funeral site pay to the Plaintiff, who is the spouse of B (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), for the following reasons:

(hereinafter “Disposition.” Although the victim’s awareness was clear, the accident in this case continued to vary depending on the situation (119 first responders, persons related to medical services, and the police) where the victim made a statement about the disaster situation, and the person cannot be identified after the accident except the Plaintiff, and if the victim fells into the window to take a handphone, then he must have his handphone fall first. On the contrary, if the handphone fell into the window to take a handphone, he must have his handphone fall first before the first day, he must have his hand fall. On the other hand, it is contradictory to the situation of the accident that the victim and the Plaintiff stated in the last day of the accident, and it is irrelevant to the work of the deceased and the Plaintiff, and the move line of the victim in this case is less likely to have been understood after the fact that the person who was at the time of the accident could not have been understood in advance at all at the time, and it is the window and the wave of the victim because no device was installed.

arrow