logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2015.06.18 2014구합5518
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. The Plaintiff is the father of the deceased B (hereinafter “the deceased”).

B. On March 2012, the Deceased entered the D (the business owner, who was the deceased’s business owner at the time of death, took over on June 1, 2013; hereinafter “instant business establishment”) and cut and sold shots and pigs to sell them.

C. On December 7, 2013, the Deceased completed his duties on December 21, 2013, and died at around 22:00 on the same day as a sudden stop due to the business owner, club dues, food, and drinking while drinking alcohol at the instant workplace.

In the autopsy report on December 30, 2013 by the National Scientific Investigation Institute of the Deceased, it is written that the cause of death of the Deceased is unknown, and that there is a possibility of a sudden death related to the sacrification of core equipment.

E. The Plaintiff asserted that the deceased’s death was caused by his work, and the Defendant claimed the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses. However, on March 17, 2014, the Defendant: (a) on the ground that Nonparty F was de facto in a de facto marital relationship with the deceased, the Plaintiff did not constitute a beneficiary of survivors’ benefits as prescribed by the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act; and (b) on the ground that it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relationship between the deceased’s work and the death, the Plaintiff made a disposition of survivors’

F. The Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination of the instant disposition with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, but was dismissed on July 25, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. 1 Plaintiff’s assertion (1) Nonparty F did not have a de facto marital relationship with the deceased, and thus, the beneficiary, such as survivor benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, is the Plaintiff, and ② the deceased’s death is due to physical division and mental stress arising from the work performed by the deceased at the instant workplace.

arrow