유족급여및장의비부지급처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: "Disability pension" in Part 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed as "Disability pension"; "this court" in Part 6, 5, 7, and 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed as "the court of first instance"; and the plaintiff's argument in the court of first instance shall be deemed as stated in the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgment as to the plaintiff's argument in the court of first instance, and therefore, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence
2. Additional matters to be determined;
A. The plaintiff asserted that the disposition of this case, which differs from this premise, is unlawful, since there exists a causal relationship between the deceased's death and the first brain color due to the following circumstances.
① The second brain color of the deceased had already been developed around March 5, 2003 when the deceased was under the first brain flasing treatment.
② At the time of the deceased’s death, the first brain male was not completely cured.
B. According to the records of Gap evidence No. 8, the deceased's doctor F of D Hospital, the main doctor of the deceased, on February 22, 2018, "the deceased diagnosed with brain fluoricosis in January 2000 and observed the fluoral fladic, fire extinguishing machine in February 2003 during the pharmacologic treatment process, and the fluoral flaor's pulic flaor's pulor's fladic fladic fladic fladic fladic fladic fladic fladic fladic fladic fladic fladic fladic fladic fladic flad flad flad flad flad flad flad fla flad fla fla flad flaf, and fla f.35.