logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2015.05.28 2015구합92
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. On October 22, 2012, the Plaintiff’s husband, (hereinafter “the deceased”) entered D Co., Ltd. located in the petition-gu C (hereinafter “instant company”) and provided facility management services. On July 5, 2014, around 08:18, 2014, the Plaintiff died due to a collision with the truck drivening on the left-hand side of the road, which was going against the signal on a pedestrian green signal, with the off-line, on the off-road road of the petition-gu, the city, Cheongju-si, the Gu, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

Although the Plaintiff claimed the bereaved family’s benefits and funeral expenses to the Defendant on November 20, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition on the bereaved family’s benefits and funeral site pay to the Plaintiff on the ground that “Inasmuch as the instant accident occurred during his/her work while attending his/her place of work, and the accident was caused by the instant accident while the Deceased was on the part of his/her own, it cannot be said that it is under the control and management of the employer, as the method and route for commuting are reserved to the employee,” on the ground that the instant accident was under the control and management of the business owner.”

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, entry in Gap’s Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In full view of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) it was impossible for the Deceased to use public transportation or to commute to and from work on the spot; (b) the method and route of his work did not have to be reserved to the Deceased; and (c) the business owner of the instant company supported the Deceased’s oil expenses, etc., the Plaintiff’s assertion can be deemed as a means of transportation or a similar means of transportation owned by the Deceased, which was actually used by the business owner during his commuting to and from work; and (d) the instant accident is under the control and management of the business owner.

arrow