logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2019.09.19 2018구단10739
유족급여및장의비부지급처분취소
Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Plaintiff A’s husband’s husband D (hereinafter “the deceased”), and Plaintiff B and C are the deceased’s children.

B. At around 10:30 on May 18, 2018, the Deceased was killed due to an accident in which concrete residues were fallen to the Deceased (hereinafter “instant accident”) while driving a scke on the F2nd floor located in Goung-gun E, Gojin-gun, and cutting off the wall sckes (hereinafter “instant construction”).

C. On June 5, 2016, the Plaintiffs asserted that the death of the deceased was caused by an occupational accident, and filed a claim against the Defendant for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses. However, on July 16, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition of survivors’ benefits and funeral funeral expenses (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “the deceased is a de facto business owner, and cannot be deemed a worker as an insured of the instant construction site.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 6, and 8 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not have the appearance as the business owner engaged in the removal business on his own account, including the Plaintiff’s license for removal and business registration under his own name and possession of equipment, raw materials, work tools, etc. The Plaintiff did not have to perform the instant construction work by directly employing the Deceased due to the Plaintiff’s failure to complete the construction contract with the Nonparty G, for which the owner had no license for removal, and the Plaintiff did not have to perform the instant construction work. Moreover, the Plaintiff directed and supervised the instant construction work to the deceased and the instant construction site, and ordered the instant construction work to be conducted by paying the equipment cost and daily allowances to the engineers, etc. after the occurrence of the instant accident. As such, the instant construction work was directly operated or ratified the instant contract.

arrow