1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The deceased B (hereinafter “the deceased”) is a person who has worked at the store of the two main points of the Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant Company”) as a sales member.

B. On May 2, 2016, around 02:30 on May 2, 2016, the Deceased, who was the head office of the instant company, and the employees belonging to the instant company, was killed with D and E, F, and G, who were in meeting with the relevant consciousness.

(2) The deceased sent the instant case to a nearby hospital through the 119 first-aid vehicle, but the deceased eventually died on May 4, 2016 at around 21:00.

C. The Plaintiff asserted to the Defendant that “the deceased was present at the instant meeting by the solicitation of D, a workplace master, and thus, the deceased’s death constitutes an occupational accident” and claimed for the payment of bereaved family’s benefits and funeral expenses.

On November 8, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition of bereaved family’s benefits and funeral’s non-use of the site (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “In light of the prime situation, etc., the instant ceremony cannot be deemed as being carried out under the management and control of the business owner, and it cannot be deemed that the deceased participated in the instant ceremony in connection with his/her duties, and it cannot be deemed that the instant violence, which was caused by the deceased’s horse, match, or bath, is inherent in human relations or duties in the workplace or is infinite risks ordinarily accompanying the work.” Therefore, the deceased’s death does not constitute an occupational accident recognized by the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, 6, 14, Eul evidence No. 3 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion D is the highest level of the instant company, except H, the representative of which is H.

D in the above position has worked at the latest.