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

A. On January 4, 2017, at around 10:30 on the road, the Plaintiff’s husband B (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s husband”) was cleaning on the road and sent back to the first-aid vehicle hospital, but was eventually killed at around 12:07 on the same day, but at around 12:07 on the same day, the National Science Investigation Research Institute determined that the cause of death of a deceased person was “brupted,” and thereafter filed an application for survivors’ benefits, etc. with the Plaintiff on April 13, 2017, by asserting that the death of a deceased person constitutes “occupational accidents”, but the Defendant did not have any dispute between the parties as to the fact that the instant disposition was rendered by specifying the result of the determination by the Determination Committee on Determination of Mine Occupational Disease, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant disposition was unlawful despite the fact that the death of a deceased person was caused as the cause of a claim by the Plaintiff constituted “occupational accidents” in spite of the so-called “accident.”

B. Therefore, as to whether there is a proximate causal relation between the personal affairs of the deceased and the death of the deceased, some of the entries in Gap 1-5, Eul 1-6, and Eul 1-6, and some of the witness C’s testimony and the result of the request for the appraisal of medical records to the D Association heads of this court are still insufficient to recognize this point. Unless there is any other evidence to acknowledge this, the instant disposition taken on the basis of the aforementioned judgment shall be deemed legitimate, while the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was a proximate causal relation is not acceptable.

2. Accordingly, we cannot accept the Plaintiff’s claim of this case.