logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.01.06 2016구합62573
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 July 5, 2010, the Plaintiff’s husband (CB, hereinafter “the deceased”) entered a company D (hereinafter “instant company”) and worked as an agent for the service support team, on November 26, 2015, the Plaintiff participated in the monthly funeral ceremony with 19 employees, including the representative director of the instant company, from the F located in Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

B. From 19:00 to 22:00, the deceased was at around 22:0, and the deceased did not attend at around 21:0 on duty and drinking drinking only.

12 persons, other than some of the employees who were returned, were in the second ceremony from the beer house located in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government to 24:00, and the deceased was present at the second ceremony.

C. After the completion of a briefing session, the Deceased driven the said vehicle back to the 15th floor rooftop parking lot of the company where the company left a siren and provided for commuting. On the following day, the vehicle was parked in a state where the vehicle was parked in the front and rear wheels with the inside of the elevator passage, and the Deceased was found to have fallen on the roof of the first floor elevator and died.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). D.

The Plaintiff asserted that the deceased’s death constitutes an occupational accident and filed a claim for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses with the Defendant. However, on April 1, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision on the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses on the ground that “the injury or self-harm by a worker, or a disaster caused by such death shall not be deemed an occupational accident.” The Deceased determined that there is a high possibility of an accident in which he/she operates a vehicle while under excessive drinking, and this constitutes an accident outside the work as a result of a criminal act.”

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). [Ground of recognition] There is no dispute, and Gap Nos. 1 through 1.

arrow