유족급여및장의비부지급처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On February 14, 1967, B, who is the husband of the Plaintiff, was C, and was employed in D for about about 18 years and 4 months from June 3, 1985 by 199.
B. On October 29, 1997, B obtained medical care approval from the Defendant from the Defendant on the following grounds: Eulphical disease (hereinafter “instant approved disease”); the Defendant was hospitalized in the Gyeonghee University Hospital, etc. from around the time of death until the time of death, and received medical care and outpatient treatment.
C. B, on May 31, 2016, visited an emergency room due to the symptoms of respiratory part, and died on June 26, 2016, when the patient was hospitalized in the patient room in the internal department, on June 26, 2016.
(hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”). The deceased’s private person expected in the death diagnosis report shall be as follows:
(a) chronic pulmonary pulmonary diseases under subparagraph (d)(c) which cause a direct death pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary Elimination (A).
D. The Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses on the ground that the deceased’s death constitutes occupational accidents. On October 12, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision on the amount of survivors’ benefits and funeral funeral expenses against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the deceased’s death appears to have been caused by a chronic pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary disease, which is a separate disease from the approval branch of the instant case, and the chronic pulmonary pulmonary disease is not recognized as proximate causal relation with the deceased’s duties or the approval branch of the instant case.”
(hereinafter “Disposition of this case”). 【The ground for recognition of this case’s Disposition of this case’s Disposition of this case’s Disposition of this case’s No. 2, 3, 6, and Eul’s Evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Death of the Deceased does not discharge a druplicous water, such as a duplicity, etc., due to the fall in physical function due to cerebral color, one of the instant approved injury diseases.