logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2019.05.23 2017구합54029
유족급여및장의비부지급처분취소
Text

1. On December 16, 2016, the Defendant’s disposition of bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

2...

Reasons

1. Circumstances and details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff’s spouse B (C students, hereinafter “the deceased”) worked in D Association (hereinafter “D”) from February 191, 191, and around the time of death, the Plaintiff’s spouse B (hereinafter “D”) belonged to E gas stations (hereinafter “instant gas stations”) and performed oil delivery business, etc.

B. On February 8, 2016, the Deceased was organized as a special worker on the day-to-day leave, and served on February 6, 2016 and February 7, 2016, and was diagnosed as waste at a new wall F Hospital on February 8, 2016.

On the same day, the deceased transferred to a G hospital 10:45 G hospital, and his/her intensive care room significantly aggravated the respiratory disorder in the treatment, and on February 9, 2016, the deceased died on February 29, 2016 when he/she transferred to a He/she hospital and was receiving treatment in a middle patient room.

The direct death of the deceased is a “hned respiratory part” and the preceding person is a “hnedity and avian influenza.”

C. The Plaintiff claimed for the payment of bereaved family’s benefits and funeral expenses to the Defendant on the ground that the deceased’s death was an occupational accident, but the Defendant, on December 16, 2016, deemed that proximate causal relation between the deceased’s death and his/her work was not recognized on the grounds as follows, disposed of the bereaved family’s benefits and funeral

(hereinafter “instant disposition.” The facts that the deceased was infected with avian influenza virus and died due to aggravation of the waste, etc. are confirmed by the doctor’s opinion, etc., but it is confirmed that the deceased was given medical treatment by using his/her working hours, etc. for one week prior to the outbreak. While one week prior to the outbreak, he/she had worked without a holiday due to his/her heavy work, it is difficult to view that the deceased was in a chronic fault due to the fact that he/she worked for 25 days during 12 weeks prior to the outbreak and worked for about 44 hours on an average per week during 84 hours prior to the outbreak. As such, the oil delivery work performed by the deceased would be exposed mainly to the relationship in which the deceased performed outdoor, and that it is difficult to deem that the deceased was in a chronic fault.

arrow