1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiffs are parents of the deceased C (D students, hereinafter “the deceased”).

B. On January 1, 2010, the Deceased was appointed as a local agricultural journal and served as follows until he/she dies.

The working period class work department between January 1, 2010 and January 20, 201, the local agriculture and tourism for the residents' living support center for the local agricultural library E, and the local agricultural library E, the community service center culture and sports from January 21, 201 to July 19, 201, and the local agricultural library, from July 20, 201 to July 8, 2012, the local agricultural library, from July 9, 2012 to July 31, 2012, from the local agricultural management team of the E-Viewing Economy and Development Bureau of the local agriculture and disaster management team of the local community, from January 1, 2013 to July 21, 2013, and from July 20, 2013 to July 21, 2013 to July 2014 to the local agricultural development team of the local agricultural community, the local agricultural community management team of the local agricultural community, and the local agricultural environment management team of the local government of the Gu.

C. On February 13, 2014, at around 20:05, the Deceased opened a door from the benda, No. 103 Dong 1101, the Daegu Suwon-gu, the residence of which was located, and died by putting the door up below.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). D.

The Plaintiffs filed a claim for the payment of bereaved family’s compensation to the Defendant, but the Defendant rendered a decision on the compensation for survivors’ compensation (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on November 27, 2014, on the ground that “It is difficult to view that the deceased’s usual performance of duties and the working environment was extremely serious or bad, and that there was no acute stress that the deceased was in the state of mental disorder at the time of the suicide.” In full view of the fact that the deceased’s death was caused by occupational stress due to occupational stress, such as an anti-public sub-incriminant, which is more sensitive to stress than that of the deceased’s death. Therefore, the deceased’s death did not constitute suicide, on the ground that it is difficult to deem that there was a considerable causal relationship with public duties.”

【Ground of recognition, without any dispute, entry of Gap 1 to 3, and 13 respectively.