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

A. On June 1, 2008, the net B (Cre; hereinafter “the net”) is a person who was employed by D Co., Ltd. on the part of Empt Emp as the owner of the livestock set in charge of food at the Empt’s horizontal point.

B. At around 13:05 on May 28, 2017, the Deceased complained of her chest from her home to her answer, and then sent back to a nearby F Hospital through her ambulances, but was eventually deceased at around 15:03 on the same day.

The direct death of the deceased in the death diagnosis report is a acute scarcity.

C. The Plaintiff, as the deceased, claimed that the death of the deceased constituted an occupational accident, and claimed the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses to the Defendant.

On March 22, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition of bereaved family's benefits and funeral site pay (hereinafter referred to as "disposition in this case") according to the results of deliberation by the Seoul Occupational Disease Determination Committee stating that "the average working hours of the deceased are below the standard of short-term and chronic, and it is difficult to find obvious aggravated factors that may incur occupational burden, such as a sudden situation related to his duties, a sudden change in working environment, or an increase in work capacity. Therefore, proximate causal relation between the deceased's duties and death is not recognized."

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1, 12 and 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The livestock field work performed by the Plaintiff’s claimant is a job with high work strength to the extent that other employees evade, and the deceased was assigned to Empt Empt Emp Emp street store, which is a newly established store seven months prior to the death. In the case of new burial, work strength is higher than other burials, the deceased worked on a alternate system, and the appropriate rest space was insufficient, and Emart was considerably excessive work hours than the work hours of the deceased identified by the Defendant, such as reducing the work hours of the employees, and the deceased was the Empt street store.