logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.12.08 2017구합54791
유족급여및장의비부지급처분취소
Text

1. Each of the plaintiffs' claims is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The deceased C (D students, hereinafter “the deceased”) was appointed as a public official of the Korea Railroad Corporation on September 1, 1998, and after the Korea Railroad Corporation was established on December 31, 2004, he succeeded to employment with the Korea Railroad Corporation.

From April 14, 2014, the deceased worked as F in the passenger headquarters E division.

The plaintiffs are parents of the deceased.

B. On April 8, 2016, the Deceased was found to be used on the floor at around 09:58.

The body autopsy report of the deceased contains the date and time of death, “the presumption of 02:00 on April 8, 2016,” and “the presumption of internal death.”

C. The Plaintiffs asserted that the deceased died of occupational disease, and claimed for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses to the Defendant.

However, on July 19, 2016, on the ground that the presumption of internal death, which is the direct death of the deceased, does not constitute an occupational disease under Article 37(1)2 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the defendant made a decision on the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses and notified the plaintiffs thereof.

hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"

(D) The Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for reexamination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Review Committee. However, on November 10, 2016, the said Committee dismissed the Plaintiffs’ request for reexamination. [The grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap’s 1 through 3, 7 through 10, 14, and 15, and the purport of the entire pleadings.]

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In full view of the following facts: (a) the decedent asserted by the Plaintiffs had been on three or four occasions a week, and had been on a long-distance business trip from January 7, 2016 to April 7, 2016, and had been on a 16-day business trip from January 7, 2016; (b) the decedent had been on an external business trip consecutively on April 6, 2016 and April 7, 2016; and (c) the decedent had been on an external business trip continuously; and (d) the decedent had been on an external business trip that it was difficult for the decedent to do so; and (e) the decedent died due to occupational fault and stress; and (e) the instant disposition on a different premise is taken.

arrow