logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2018.04.26 2017구합72461
순직유족보상금부지급처분취소 청구의 소
Text

1. The Defendant’s disposition of compensation for survivors of public officials who died on November 11, 2016 is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 12, 1999, the Plaintiff’s husband (hereinafter “the deceased”) was appointed as police officials on June 12, 199, and from January 28, 2016, the Donsan Police Station and C District (hereinafter “C District”).

B. From September 18, 2016 to 09:00 on the following day, the Deceased worked at night, immediately leaving the room, and immediately leaving the room. At around 19:30, the Deceased complained of his/her chest card at around 21:30, the Deceased complained of his/her chest card. At around 22:31, he/she was transferred to the emergency room of the Jeonbuk University Hospital, and was killed at around 02:11 on September 20, 2016.

The death diagnosis report on the deceased is written by the direct death person in an acute fluorial background (hereinafter referred to as the “instant injury and disease”).

C. The Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for compensation for survivors of public officials who died on duty on the ground that the deceased died while on duty. However, in light of the medical record sheet and the result of the inspection of the early high wave on November 11, 2016, the Defendant appears to have received the deceased’s health pressure and treatment of the deceased, regardless of his/her acute symptoms arising in the performance of official duties on September 2014, in light of the following: (a) the heart function of the heart was normal; (b) treatment for cardiopulmonary emulculation was merely preserved; and (c) the treatment for cardiopulmonary emulculation was merely limited to preservation; and (d) it is difficult to ascertain whether the cause of death was the same as the cardiopulmonary emulculation that occurred in 2014, and there was no clear medical basis for the diagnosis of the cause of death with acute emulculation.”

Even as mentioned above, it is a case with a medical opinion resulting in death.

arrow