logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2014.08.21 2013구단10369
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. B moved the dump truck owned by its owner to move the dump dump truck and carried out the dump destruction work by taking charge of the waterway of the rural community construction work in the Young-gun, the Young-gun, including the construction of the dump dump dump dyp dyp dyp dyp dyp dyp dyp dyp dyp dyp dyp dyp dyp dyp dyp dyp sump

B. On May 19, 2013, at around 16:30 on May 19, 2013, the Deceased, a work site of B, had been killed in the upper part of the dump gate even in the upper part of the dump gate, while the dump engine was dump truck from the road before the eump truck purification site of the eump, Yangyang-gun, Yangyang-gun, Seoyang-gun, Seoyang-gun, the New Center for Water Supply

C. On June 24, 2013, the Plaintiff applied for the payment of bereaved family benefits to the Defendant.

On July 8, 2013, the Defendant rendered a disposition on the land classification of bereaved family benefits (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the fact that the deceased died as a result of a compromise in the efratter of the efratter in the front line of the efratter on May 19, 2013 at the site of the efratator-recognition of the efratator, but it is difficult to recognize a substantial causal relationship between the deceased’s death and his/her duties due to an accident that occurred in the course of a private act unrelated to his/her duties” (hereinafter “the instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s labor contract of the Deceased was from April 22, 2013, and was maintained at the time of the instant accident, and was terminated on May 15, 2013, the Plaintiff’s assertion was not that of B.

The defendant's assertion employs only the part unfavorable to the plaintiff among the non-conformity B's assertion.

arrow