1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 24, 2001, the Plaintiff’s husband’s husband (CB, hereinafter “the deceased”) entered D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) and performed the work of contact, etc. in the shipbuilding business division for about 11 years by the end of 2012.

B. On December 31, 2012, the deceased was confirmed on January 3, 2013 at the prosecutor who was hospitalized in the E Hospital as a acute diversology, and was conducted on January 3, 2013.

On March 22, 2013, the Deceased was transferred to a F Hospital on January 4, 2013, and was subject to dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium (hereinafter “dys of this case”).

The Deceased was subject to pain control, blood crypology treatment, anti-cryp cancer treatment, and radiation treatment due to telegraph dystrophism, chronic renal failure, and the instant injury and disease, but died due to the instant injury and disease around June 22, 2015.

C. On September 1, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the deceased’s death constituted an occupational accident, and filed a claim for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses. However, on the ground that the Defendant rendered the bereaved family benefits and funeral site-based disposition (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “The Korea Occupational Safety and Health Institute (hereinafter “Industrial Safety and Health Institute”) conducted an epidemiological investigation by the Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency (hereinafter “Industrial Safety and Health Institute”) on the ground that it is difficult to recognize the deceased’s death as an occupational accident because it was not exposed to ion radiation, bee, ethyl, ethylene, etc. known as a risk factor in connection with the deceased’s melting work, or because it was determined that the exposure level was low.”

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 8, 11 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is doing contact with the instant company for not less than 10 years.