1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 1, 2005, the deceased A (E; hereinafter “the deceased”) is a person who was employed in F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant place of business”) in the position of a managing director and worked as a managing director in the position of the company, which is engaged in the research and development of diagnosis reagents and equipment, production and sales business, etc.

As a person in charge of the practical affairs of the instant workplace, the Deceased has performed the practical affairs of all projects directly or has been in charge of the duties to direct and supervise the practitioners.

B. At around 05:59 on December 29, 2017, the Deceased was used in her home with non-name and sent back to a nearby G hospital through an ambulances. The hospital received the diagnosis of “damage to fluoric brain,” “fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoring,” “fluoral fluoring fluoral fluorial fluoring,” and “fluoral fluoring fluor who was successful in the human body” (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “fluoral flu

C. Accordingly, on November 9, 2018, the Defendant examined the work hours before the outbreak, or rapid change in the work environment within 24 hours prior to the outbreak, and examined the work hours prior to the outbreak. The average work hours per week during about 40 hours prior to the outbreak, about 40 hours per week average work hours per week during 12 weeks prior to the outbreak, and about 40 hours per week average work hours per week during 12 weeks prior to the outbreak, and the average work hours per week during 40 hours per week prior to the outbreak, are not exceeding 52 hours per week average work hours per week prior to the outbreak, which have not been confirmed by the Deceased’s rapid change in the work environment, sudden increase in work volume, short-term, or chronic fault in the course of performing his duties, and it is difficult to view it as an increase in work burden to the extent to cause the injury or disease of this case, and in accordance with the result of the deliberation of the Deceased’s non-approval decision on medical care benefits in this case below.