1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The family benefits and funeral expenses that the Defendant provided to the Plaintiff on October 15, 2012.

Details of the disposition

On June 1, 2009, the Plaintiff (C; hereinafter “the Plaintiff”) entered the original business system, Inc. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) and took charge of accounting accounting, customer business A/S, material management, etc. as “the management support team F,” and mainly took charge of internal management of the company.

Around 07:22 on April 30, 2012, the Deceased was subject to an accident (hereinafter “instant accident”) used in a toilet at his own home while preparing to work in accordance with the demand to work at the company’s company’s workplace, and was diagnosed by a prop-offing transfusion (hereinafter “instant injury”). On May 2, 2012, the Deceased University was transferred to a D Hospital, and died as “direct private person: the heart stop, the middle-line event: the brain function department, and the front-time death: the prop-off transfusion.”

The Plaintiff, his father, requested the bereaved family's benefits and funeral expenses on the ground that the deceased's death constitutes an occupational accident. However, on October 15, 2012, the Defendant rendered a disposition of bereaved family's benefits and funeral expenses against the Plaintiff on the ground that "the causal relation with the deceased's work is not acknowledged because it is difficult to recognize occupational career and stress."

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant request for reexamination, but was dismissed by the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee on February 25, 2013.

【In the absence of dispute, the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff’s assertion as to whether there was a dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 and 4, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 and 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings, was lawful. The Plaintiff’s assertion was in an excessive state due to a significant increase in the company’s work volume and working hours, such as the preparation of a company-based contract, written estimates, and monthly settlement of accounts, etc. before the occurrence of the instant accident. Around April 28, 2012, which