logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2018.01.19 2016구합51870
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. A. Around July 2007, the Plaintiff’s spouse (hereinafter “the deceased”) entered the Korea Land Distribution Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant workplace”) and was working at the Biocop processing team, which was used on October 15, 2014 at his/her home toilets around 22:30, and was sent back to the Hanyang University Hospital by the 119 Emergency Medical Service, but was killed by “the ecopic fluoric fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluor.08 on October 16, 2014.

B. On February 24, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the deceased’s death constituted an occupational accident, and filed a claim for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses with the Defendant. However, on July 6, 2015, the Defendant rendered a claim for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relation between the deceased’s death and the deceased’s work as a result of the review by the Seoul Committee on the Determination of Seoul Occupational Disease, on the ground that “the serious conditions of the deceased’s death are presumed to have been estimated (proof) and the work hours are insufficient to determine as excessive, and that it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relation between the deceased’s death and the work due to a sudden or rapid stress

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for examination with the Defendant, but the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for examination on November 2, 2015.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3, Eul 1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) performed the work using his hand and arms in the low temperature environment of 5°C in the instant workplace for about seven years from the day to the day of his death after his entry; (b) the Deceased was suffering from a heavy physical burden and stress compared to other workers, and (c) the Deceased was suffering from a highly physical burden and stress due to his high-standing work during his working period at the instant workplace.

arrow