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 April 1, 2002, the Plaintiff’s husband who is the Plaintiff’s husband (hereinafter “the Plaintiff”) entered the Plaintiff’s husband and carried out the business of trading ideas.

B. On February 20, 2014, the deceased was prepared to work at the morning and was used on the floor of the deliberative room in the work room at around 08:40 on the same day, and immediately sent back to the hospital, but at around 9:50 on the same day, the deceased died of “the heart voltage due to the parallel parallel beer and beer,” at around 9:50 on the same day.

C. The Plaintiff asserted that the death of a deceased person constitutes an occupational accident and filed a claim for the bereaved family’s benefits and funeral expenses with the Defendant, but the Defendant, on May 12, 2014, did not confirm the occupational chronic course, stress, or a rapid change in the business environment prior to the death of the deceased person, and made a decision on the site payment on the ground that there is no proximate causal relation between the work and the deceased person’s death, on the ground that it is determined that there is an occurrence and death due to the natural deterioration of a personal minor disease, such as normal high blood pressure and ties, and thus, it cannot

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

In response to the instant disposition, the Plaintiff filed a request for examination with the Defendant, but the Defendant dismissed the request for examination on October 2, 2014, as it is not recognized that the death of the deceased was due to an occupational reason.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 4, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's ground for appeal has good health, and there was a sudden change in the working environment, such as the company's performance of heavy work compared to that of the age (67 years old), and the work performed by the company under Article 2, 1, 2, 1, on the day of the death of the deceased. Therefore, there is a proximate causal relation between the death of the deceased and the work of the deceased.

Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s claim for survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses on different premise is unlawful.

(b) Appendix attached to the relevant legislation;