2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

A. 1) With respect to the approval of medical care and additional injury and disease, the Plaintiff’s husband B (CB, hereinafter “the deceased”).

On June 13, 2006, while becoming a researcher and working for the Agency for Defense Development on September 1, 1989, the Defendant obtained medical care approval for the above injury and disease from the Defendant, using it as the cerebral cerebral typosis caused by the Macrop fever on the right side, and the Defendant obtained medical care approval for the above injury and disease. In addition, the above approved injury and disease are collectively referred to as “the approved injury and disease in this case” in total as “the right right side math, right right right-hand typhosome, both sides, verbal disorder, and neutism (hereinafter referred to as “the approved injury and disease”).

(2) After November 25, 2012, the Deceased was hospitalized in the Hanyang University Hospital until June 7, 2013.

On January 24, 2013, the Deceased applied for approval of additional injury and disease medical care to the Defendant on the ground that the above injury and disease were not recognized for the first occupational accident or the causal relationship between the approval of this case, although the deceased applied for approval of additional injury and disease medical care for acute fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral flus

B. From September 2, 2013 to September 2, 2013, a private decedent died on October 18, 2013 in the process of being hospitalized in the Soyang University Hospital and being treated for treatment. On the death diagnosis report, the deceased’s direct death on the deceased’s death diagnosis report is pulmonary blood transfusion, intermediate event event, and pre-patient’s death after cerebral transfusion.

C. On November 11, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for bereaved family’s benefits, etc. and the site pay claim against the Defendant for the payment of bereaved family’s benefits and funeral expenses on the ground that the deceased’s death was an occupational accident. However, on December 6, 2013, the Defendant rendered a disposition to refuse the payment against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the pulmonary pulmonary Madnety and Madneosis, which served as the cause of the deceased’s death, was based on an acute fluorial certificate additionally incurred during the medical care, which does not constitute a medical causal relationship

(c).