1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. B has served in a vice-ro corporation (hereinafter referred to as “sub-roter”) that manufactures automobile boom disks, etc. from September 1, 1983.

B around 9:00 p.m. on August 8, 2014, the body was used in the shower room in the place of business of the vice-racker (hereinafter “instant accident”), and the body was transferred to the hospital according to the report of the car-employed worker discovered the accident.

As a result of the diagnosis at the hospital, B was found to be “B” due to the diagnosis, and B died at around 9:30:0 on August 21, 2014 while receiving surgery and treatment at the above hospital.

(B) Therefore, the direct cause of death of an deceased person was “infinite cerebral brain.”

B. On November 3, 2014, the Plaintiff, a deceased person’s wife, claimed for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses to the Defendant under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act in relation to the deceased person’s death.

However, on December 18, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition against the Plaintiff that “it is difficult to recognize the proximate causal relationship between the work and the injury and disease because of the sudden change in the work environment prior to the outbreak of the disease or chronic overwork or stress,” in accordance with the determination by the Committee for Determination of the Minor Disease Disease (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Entry of Evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In light of the following facts as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition, it is insufficient to recognize that a deceased person died due to the circumstance or the evidence presented by the Plaintiff solely based on the circumstance or evidence alleged by the Plaintiff, because the deceased person was overwork or was under stress in the course of performing his/her duties in an influence. There is no other evidence to acknowledge that there exists a proximate causal relation with the deceased person’s death based on the profluence and the

Therefore, it is deemed that the deceased has died as a reason of his duties.