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

A. On September 8, 1984, the deceased B (Cre, hereinafter “the deceased”) received medical care approval for the right-hand paralysis due to brain stroke, brain stroke, verbal disability, brain stroke, etc. (hereinafter “instant industrial accident approval-related disease”) in the course of occupational accidents where the body is crashed and the body is broken down from the cargo vehicle on September 8, 1984.

On March 21, 2005, the treatment was terminated according to the opinion that there is no possibility of compatibility with the symptoms any longer after the symptoms were fixed.

B. The Deceased died at his home on November 1, 2013 while receiving a determination of grade 2 subparag. 5 of the disability grade from the Defendant and providing medical care at his home.

C. On November 7, 2013, the Plaintiff, the deceased’s spouse, asserted that the deceased’s death was caused by an occupational accident and claimed for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses.

On January 8, 2014, the Defendant rendered a decision that the bereaved family’s benefits and funeral expenses cannot be paid (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the deceased’s death and the proximate causal relation between the industrial accident approval branch of this case cannot be recognized.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, and Eul 1 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. After the Plaintiff’s alleged occupational accident, the Deceased was hospitalized in the hospital due to the industrial accident of this case or received outpatient treatment. After the completion of treatment, he was unable to move to the hospital at his own home until the death. During that process, there were various mergers, such as fluoral typosis, acute typitis, fluoral typosis, and fluoral typosis, etc., due to the lack of food and fire-fighting disorder. The death was caused while she complained of the fluor and fluoral typosis and the response.

Therefore, even though it is obvious that the deceased died due to occupational accidents, the defendant's disposition of this case different from this opinion is taken.