1. The disposition of bereaved family benefits and funeral site wages rendered by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on May 14, 2019 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

Details of the disposition

B (C) From March 28, 2018 to D Co., Ltd., worked in the F new construction site of apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) to be built by E Co., Ltd. under the jurisdiction of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant construction site”).

B on May 23, 2018, around 10:50, the apartment G G 30 floor reclamation pipes of the instant apartment G G G 30th floor was complained of the 29th floor and was moving to the 29th floor to rest.

The state was 28th floor in which the consciousness was lost while the rest was withdrawn.

19 First Aid Team sent back to a nearby hospital, but died at 12:00 before the arrival of the hospital.

As a result of the autopsy, the private person is presumed to be "high-level heart beer and beer (including high-speed beer and sculpinary beer)."

The plaintiff is the spouse of B (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”).

On May 14, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition of the bereaved family’s benefits and funeral site funeral expenses to the Plaintiff on the ground that “A sudden and difficult change related to the business has not been confirmed, and there is no chronic or heavy physical or mental burden. It is determined that the natural progress of existing personal disease has deteriorated. It is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relationship between the deceased’s death and his/her duties.”

(hereinafter "Disposition in this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap's evidence 1 through 4, 21 through 25, Eul's evidence 1, 3, and 4, and the whole purport of the pleadings are as shown in the attached Form of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes.

Whether the instant disposition is legitimate or not, the Defendant did not recognize the deceased’s occupational negligence or stress, and determined that the death was caused by the natural transitional aggravation of the existing personal disease.

However, even after examining the evidence submitted by the Defendant, it cannot be confirmed whether the deceased’s base disease is.

Even based on the health insurance benefit content (Evidence No. 5) and the health care content (Evidence No. 6) of the deceased, there is no particular special circumstance in addition to the opinion of high blood pressure on May 14, 2018.