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

The network B (hereinafter referred to as “the network”) was in charge of managing the installation of CCTV site system, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “instant construction”) in the section D of Seoul Yangyang Highway as an employee belonging to C (hereinafter referred to as “C”).

The Corporation ordered the Korea Highway Corporation to a Masters Korea Co., Ltd., and the Masters Korea Co., Ltd. subcontracted to C to which the Deceased belongs, and C re-subcontracted to E, and F, a collaborative company, performed the instant construction.

On May 27, 2016, from around 19:00 to 23:00, the Deceased-gun G G located in Gangwon-do to KRW 23:00, the Deceased followed drinking together with K as an employee of the F (hereinafter referred to as the “instant ceremony”), and died by falling into M (102m in length, about 4.3m in height, hereinafter referred to as the “instant bridge”) above N (102m in length), while moving to a lodging room, and then falling into M (70m in depth, about 102m in height, 4.3m in height, and hereinafter referred to as the “instant bridge”).

(A) On September 8, 2016, the Plaintiff, the wife of the Deceased, filed a claim against the Defendant for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses on the ground that the Deceased died due to an occupational accident. However, on December 22, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition of survivors’ benefits and funeral funeral expenses (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “the deceased was unable to use the means of transport provided by the business owner at the time of the instant accident.” The site of the instant accident is a facility used by a large number of unspecified persons, and is not responsible for the management of the Deceased’s business owner. Therefore, it is difficult to recognize that the Deceased died during his/her retirement under the business owner’s control and management.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements, Eul's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and Eul's evidence Nos. 1 (including each number), and the overall purport of the argument of this case is legitimate. The plaintiff's assertion that the disposition of this case is legitimate is being stationed at the construction site of this case, and the