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

On August 24, 2013, the deceased B (hereinafter “the deceased”), who is the husband of the Plaintiff, was employed in the coal industry, Inc. (hereinafter “Ocheon Industry”), and was employed as security guards in the D apartment in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Gangdong-gu as the security guard on January 21, 2014, and was discovered to be used in the above apartment 328 units around 17:40 units of the apartment complex, and was sent back to the F Hospital located in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, and was treated for an operation, but died of the operation after being sent back to the F Hospital located in Dongdaemun-gu, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, via the Gangnam-gu National University Hospital on February 22, 2014.

(hereinafter “instant disaster.” On March 11, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses with the Defendant, but the Defendant, on April 11, 2014, rendered a decision against the Plaintiff on the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses on the ground that “it is difficult to deem that there is any occupational fault, rapid increase in duties, stress, etc. as much as inducing the injury or disease in light of the content of the business, and thus, the relationship between the duties and the work branch cannot be recognized.” The Plaintiff filed a petition for review against this, and received a decision of dismissal from the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Review Committee on July 10, 2014.

On November 11, 2014, the Plaintiff again filed a claim for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses to the Defendant. However, on the same ground as on November 17, 2014, the Defendant rendered a decision on the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses to the Plaintiff on the same ground.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [The grounds for recognition] did not dispute, the entries in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the entire argument as to the legitimacy of the Disposition in this case is legitimate. The plaintiff’s assertion that the disposition in this case was lawful since 2008, when the plaintiff worked as an apartment guard for about 24 hours a day to work as an apartment guard for about 6 hours, there have been a lot of changes in body hythrh and physiological cycle due to the work as an apartment guard for about 24 hours a day, and the disaster in this case occurred by performing the work of separate collection and removal for about 12 hours at the time of the accident. As such, the death of the deceased has