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

A. On October 12, 201, the Plaintiff’s husband’s (hereinafter “the network”) suffered from the Plaintiff’s damage to the Plaintiff’s husband’s blood transfusion, the left side of the Plaintiff’s husband, and the Defendant’s medical care on October 24, 201 with respect to the said injury, which was approved by the Defendant as to medical treatment on the part of the Defendant on the following: (a) the lower part of the lower part of the Plaintiff’s husband; (b) the pressure and damage to the left part; (c) the pressure of the lower part of the Plaintiff’s left part; (d) the pressure of the lower part of the Plaintiff’s left part; (e) the pressure of the lower part of the Plaintiff’s left part; (e) the pressure of the lower part of the Plaintiff’s left part; (e) the pressure of the lower part of the Plaintiff’s left part; (e) the upper part of the Plaintiff

B. From October 12, 201 to September 27, 2013, the Deceased was hospitalized in the Ansan Hospital, etc. at the Korea University within the National University.

C. On February 15, 2013, the Deceased applied for the approval of additional injury and disease medical care to the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant, on March 15, 2013, the foregoing closure was not recognized on the ground that the causal relationship between the instant injury and disease was not recognized.

On October 1, 2013, the Deceased was found to have died at his home boomed around 22:42 on October 1, 2013, and a private person on the deceased’s death report is “unexploited.”

E. The Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for the payment of bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses, but the Defendant rendered a land payment disposition on December 11, 2013 on the ground that “the reason for the deceased’s death is “unexplicient,” and it is difficult to presume the causal relationship with the death of the instant upper branch.”

(hereinafter "Disposition in this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including provisional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that there had been no healthy and chronic disease or personal disease that had been treated for a long time prior to the instant injury and disease. The Plaintiff’s immunity has deteriorated due to a long-standing operation due to the instant injury and disease, multiple surgery, taking antibiotics, lack in nutrition, and thus, a merger witness’s pulmonary or pulmonary disease.