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

A. From December 30, 192, Nonparty B (CB, hereinafter “the deceased”), the Plaintiff’s spouse, served at the Marisan Office of the National Park Management Corporation. On March 4, 2015, Nonparty B (hereinafter “the deceased”) received “consumption on the bilateral side,” and died on March 8, 2015.

나. 원고는 망인의 사망이 업무상 재해라고 주장하면서 피고에게 유족급여 및 장의비 지급을 청구하였으나, 피고는 망인의 기존 승인상병인 ‘좌측 무릎뼈의 골절, 양측 고관절 염좌’(2012. 3. 28. 사고발생)와 망인의 사망원인인 ‘급성 심근경색증’ 사이에는 의학적 인과관계가 인정되지 않는다는 이유로 부지급 결정을 하였다

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap’s evidence Nos. 2 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was caused by the injury of the bridge during the performance of his duties for a long time, and caused the occurrence or aggravation of the “niveal dystyposis without sexual intercourses on the two sides,” thereby resulting in the Plaintiff’s death by the “pymical styption for both sides.” The Plaintiff’s assertion caused the death by the “pymical styposis” of the aforementioned surgery merger witness.

Therefore, the deceased's death constitutes an occupational accident because there is a proximate causal relation with the previous occupational injury.

(b) Entry in the attached statutes of the relevant statutes;

C. Fact-finding 1) The Deceased’s injury or disease described in paragraphs (a) through (c) below (hereinafter “existing injury or disease”).

(A) On April 9, 1996, the date of the first occupational accident, the name of the sick and wounded who was in excess of the summering point after the extraction of waste from the urgical acid on April 9, 1996, which was recognized by the Defendant to fall under the occupational accident, and received medical care benefits, etc. from the Defendant.