logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2018.04.27 2016구합85408
유족급여및장의비부지급처분취소
Text

1. On November 18, 2015, the disposition that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on November 18, 2015 as bereaved family benefits and funeral site wages shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 12, 2013, the Plaintiff’s siblings B (hereinafter “the deceased”) concluded a labor contract with D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) and performed the work of operating food waste transport vehicles (hereinafter “instant labor contract”).

B. On December 29, 2014, the Deceased worked in a D office on December 29, 2014, setting the food waste transport vehicle a stop at a rest room.

The Deceased was found to have died in the resting room around 02:30 on the same day.

C. The autopsy affiliated with the central medical center of the National Institute of Scientific Investigation, which conducted the autopsy of the deceased, determined that the deceased’s private person was “pactic heart heart disease (including acute fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial

The Plaintiff claimed the payment of bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses to the Defendant.

However, on November 18, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition of bereaved family benefits and funeral site expenses (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that there is no proximate causal relation between the deceased’s work and death.

E. 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 March 23, 2016.

The Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, but the said Committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for reexamination on September 8, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, 9, 12, 13, 56, and 64, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Since proximate causal relation is recognized between the work and the death of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the instant disposition was unlawful on a different premise.

(b) Attached statutes, such as relevant statutes, shall be as stated;

C. The regular working hours of the Deceased under the instant employment contract are from 00:00 to 08:00.

However, the Deceased goes to work as a D office before normal 00:00 and then came to work as a preparatory office from around 00:30.

arrow