logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2015.10.16 2015구단4450
평균임금결정및보험급여차액부지급처분취소
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 March 18, 201, the Plaintiff obtained medical treatment from the Defendant on November 16, 201, as an injury that was caused by high voltage power (hereinafter “instant accident”) among the operations conducted by the Suwon-gu, Incheon District Corporation (hereinafter “instant construction”) for the electric power room, the electric wires replacement and the printing panel (hereinafter “instant construction”), and as the Defendant’s injury to both sides’s 3 degrees of fingers and grandchildren, images, both sides’ 3 degrees of video, epic damage to both sides, epictal damage, epictal damage, the right-hand pelle, 4, 5 metregal damage, the upper right-hand part, the upper right-hand part, the inner part, 5 metregal damage to the upper left-hand part of the construction project.

B. On December 13, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for the correction of average wages and a claim for the difference in insurance benefits with the Defendant, asserting that the daily wage of the Plaintiff concerning the instant construction is KRW 230,000,000, based on the minimum wage in 2011.

C. On February 11, 2014, the Defendant recognized the Plaintiff as the daily wage of KRW 113,858 on the ground that “The daily wage is confirmed to be KRW 106,250 through KRW 130,000 as a result of the verification of the current status of daily work of daily workers employed at the other workplace from 2010 to 2011, and cannot be confirmed, including the details of account transfer,” and issued a disposition to apply the average wage of KRW 83,116.34, which applied the ordinary wage to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The Plaintiff’s average wage increased as above also did not reflect the actual average wage of the Plaintiff, which was examined and requested for reexamination, but all of them were dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 3 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion ① The Plaintiff received KRW 2,30,000 per day between C and the stock company on March 17, 2011 and the instant construction work.

arrow