logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2014.08.14 2012구합20052
유족급여및장의비부지급처분취소
Text

1. The disposition that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on December 16, 2011 as bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 30, 201, the Plaintiff’s wife B (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s wife”) entered Lone Star Co., Ltd., a company dispatching human resources, and worked as a production-based employee of the ASEAN (hereinafter “instant company”) who produces automobile parts in Yongcheon-si, from that time.

B. On July 4, 2011, the Deceased began to work at night from around 19:40 to around 22:30 of the same day, and was used at the site of assembling the vehicle parts of the instant company, and was sent first to the Yong-Namnam University Hospital, Yong-gu, and was then sent back to the Gyeonggi-do University Hospital. However, on July 5, 201, the Deceased died during medical treatment on or around 03:37.

At the time, the doctor who treated the deceased determined that the direct death of the deceased was cerebral blood.

C. On October 4, 2011, the Plaintiff asserted that the death of the deceased constituted occupational accidents, and applied for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses to the Defendant. However, on December 16, 201, the Defendant rendered a disposition of survivors’ benefits and funeral funeral expenses (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the proximate causal relation between the death and the work of the deceased cannot be acknowledged to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff filed a request for examination against this and received a decision of dismissal from the Defendant on March 26, 2012.

On June 1, 2012, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for reexamination, but was dismissed by the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 20, 21, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that he worked as the manufacturer of the instant company’s automobile parts factory, and there was a chronic course and stress due to continuous extension work since one month prior to his death, and the destruction of the physiological rhythm in accordance with holidays work and two nights at night.

In particular, the deceased will work for a total of 76 hours, including extension of 36 hours per week immediately preceding the death and holiday work.

arrow