logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.10.12 2017누56119
유족급여및장의비부지급처분취소
Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. On February 22, 2016, the Defendant’s payment of bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the disposition are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the deceased was in charge of trade affairs, business affairs, accounting affairs, response to the tax investigation of D, and rehabilitation affairs of D, etc. Even after F retired, he/she performed excessive tasks, such as aiding and abetting the settlement of corporate tax of D, etc., and was subject to heavy stress in criminal cases related to his/her duties for a long period of time.

The Deceased’s suicide was caused due to the aggravation of depression that occurred in the course of performing his/her duties as seen above, resulting in the failure of normal perception, capacity to choose action, and mental suppression, and thus, there is a proximate causal relationship between the Deceased’s suicide and his/her duties.

Therefore, the instant disposition taken on a different premise is unlawful.

B. The facts of recognition [based on recognition] did not dispute, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 6-3, 4, 7, Gap evidence 8-4, 10, 11, 9-3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12-3, Gap evidence 13, 14-1, 2, 3, 18, 3, and 18 of Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 3, testimony of the first instance court witness H, and the purport of the whole pleadings) were that the deceased's management work was performed by the representative director in Seocho-gu, Seoul from April 1, 2012 to January 31, 2013, including 0:0 to 180 of the deceased's customs clearance and fire prevention work, and the deceased's work was performed by the defendant's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company'.

arrow