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 January 19, 2015, the Plaintiff’s husband B (hereinafter “the deceased”) is a person who was employed in C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) and has worked as a regular manager.

B. On April 8, 2016, the Deceased, at around 07:03, arrived at the instant company and went to the meeting from around 08:00. Around 09:00, the Deceased was found to have been in the rest room in the company and was sent to the Gangnam-gu Hospital of the Korea Forest University, which was then died at around 13:30.

The direct deathist in the deceased's death diagnosis report is a multi-presidential long-term corrosion, the intermediate winner in the middle line, and the pre-prisonist in the middle line color.

C. The Plaintiff asserted that there exists a proximate causal relation between the deceased’s death and duty, and claimed the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses to the Defendant. However, on July 6, 2016, the Defendant, following deliberation by the Occupational Disease Determination Committee, deemed that the deceased’s working hours are somewhat long, but did not seem to have been unexpectedly or rapidly changed in the work environment before the occurrence, and that the deceased’s working hours are deemed to have continued to be performed ordinary work, and that the deceased’s work hours do not fall under acute and chronicros, and that a proximate causal relation between the deceased’s death and his/her work is not acknowledged as not objectively.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

The Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination of the instant disposition with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, but the said Committee rendered a ruling on November 17, 2016 that the said request for reexamination is dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the person responsible for the technical business of the instant company as the person responsible for the technical business of the instant company, such as coordinating and exercising overall control over each team’s duties.