Costs of lawsuit shall be borne individually by each person.

A. B (C) served on the construction site from July 1, 1993, and was used at his home on April 26, 200, and was approved to receive medical care for an occupational disease. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 17457, Jul. 1, 1993; Presidential Decree No. 17320, Apr. 26, 2000>

B was approved as an additional wound on October 13, 2001, and on August 21, 2002, as a part of an additional wound the alley of the right-side etroke in the upper right-side etroke.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant injury and disease” encompassing the disease approved by B. B.

B, on September 17, 2019, after being hospitalized due to a difficulty in repulmonon, was diagnosed of waste and died on September 25, 2019.

(hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”). (c)

On November 21, 2019, the Defendant, as the deceased’s spouse, issued a disposition of survivors’ benefits and funeral site pay to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the deceased’s death to the inside and spawn of the overall state of urology, urine, spawnitis, and the aged’s overall state decline, and there is no proximate causal relation between the death of the injury branch of the instant case.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5 through 7 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of the request for the examination of medical records to the Chief of the branch court of the Seoul National University Hospital, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The details of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes are as shown in attached statutes;

3. Whether the defendant's disposition of bereaved family benefits and funeral site wages is legitimate;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the death of the deceased was caused due to the aggravation of the pulmonary collection while receiving medical treatment as the injury and disease of this case, and thus, there is a proximate causal relation between the death of the deceased and the injury and death

B. The following facts and circumstances may be acknowledged or known in full view of the facts and the evidence as seen earlier, the records of Gap's evidence, Gap's evidence Nos. 3 and 4, and the purport of the entire argument as to the result of the request for the examination of the medical records

According to this, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize a proximate causal relationship between the death of the deceased and the upper branch of this case.

1 The Deceased is diagnosed with urology around 1990 and on October 2009.