1. The disposition that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on August 29, 2016 as bereaved family benefits and funeral site wages shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 28, 2008, the Plaintiff’s spouse, entered into a labor contract with D Co., Ltd., and thereafter, the Plaintiff’s spouse carried out the business of facility management, etc. at solar power plants located in Chungcheongnam-gun E (hereinafter “instant power plant”).

B. On October 6, 2015, the Deceased appealed to the Plaintiff at the time of making a telephone call with the Plaintiff on October 6, 2015.

Since then, the Plaintiff reported to the 17:48 119 emergency squad on the same day as the day when the contact with the deceased is not contacted.

At around 18:05 on the same day, the deceased was found to have been used in his own vehicle, and was sent by the 119 emergency squad to the Taean Military Health Care Center, but died at around 18:5 on the same day.

C. The deceased’s death diagnosis report is written by the deceased’s private person as “intestine death with intestine unknown.”

The Plaintiff claimed the payment of bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses to the Defendant.

However, on August 29, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition of bereaved family benefits and funeral site expenses (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that there is no proximate causal relation between the deceased’s work and the death.

E. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for an examination with the Defendant, but the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for examination on January 18, 2017.

The Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, but the said Committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for reexamination on May 26, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Since proximate causal relation is recognized between the work and the death of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the instant disposition was unlawful on a different premise.

(b) Attached statutes, such as relevant statutes, shall be as stated;

C. The judgment of the deceased cannot clearly determine the cause of death on the ground that the deceased’s private autopsy was not conducted on the part of the deceased.

However, as seen earlier.