2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On June 8, 1996, the Plaintiff’s spouse, deceased B (CB, hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s spouse”) fell from a string at a height of approximately 1.2 meters and suffered injuries, such as double alleys, while working at the construction site.

From the same day until May 31, 2004, the Deceased completed the hospitalized treatment and outpatient treatment at a set-off white hospital annexed to the Human University as a result of the peltomath, cerebralopa, brain cerebralopathy, cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebralopa, and chronological personality disorder (hereinafter “existing approved injury”). The Deceased was determined as class 2 subparag. 5 of the disability grade, and received disability benefits of KRW 387,243,940 and nursing benefits of KRW 117,790,660.

B. On February 2, 2017, at around 08:00 to 09:00, the Deceased, who was the care of the Deceased, went out of his residence and was in front of the elevator. Since then, the Deceased was found to be used in front of the elevator by adjoining the Deceased.

The Deceased shall be the same month.

6. A person who has been hospitalized in a sanatorium and received treatment, and the same month;

7. He/she received treatment by transferring to E hospital, but died of cerebral cerebrovascular on the 17th day of the same month.

C. The Plaintiff asserted that there exists a proximate causal relationship between the deceased’s death and the existing approved injury and claimed for the payment of bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses to the Defendant. However, on April 24, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition of bereaved family’s benefits and funeral expenses (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the proximate causal relationship between the deceased’s death and the existing approved injury and the deceased’s death cannot be acknowledged.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 3 through 5, 7, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of death resulted in the death of the deceased and the existing death of the deceased, inasmuch as the function of recognition has been continuously deteriorated due to the existing approved injury, and the body-centered center has come out of his residence, and the body-centered has not been kept out of his residence.