1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The details and details B (the husband, C) of the disposition was appointed to D military administration on April 30, 1992, and served as the head of D military E-Eup from September 16, 2014.

B, around 10:30 on February 10, 2015, at around 10:10, the head of D Gun, etc. responded to the near F piracy, and immediately after returning to the office at around 11:30, the head of D Gun, etc. complained of a serious pain and answer to trees, chests, and brea, etc., and was transferred to G hospital urgently, but died at around 13:0.

(B) On April 9, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for the compensation for survivors, but the Defendant rendered a decision on the compensation for survivors’ compensation for the following reasons (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

As a result of confirmation of the deceased’s performance of duties, excessive work details, etc., it is difficult to see that the deceased was in excess of the ordinary scope of duties, and according to the health insurance medical care details of the deceased, the deceased was confirmed to have received medical treatment several times from 2005 to 2014 with high blood pressure and sacrifa, and the deceased died due to cumulative stress in the line of duty and stress.

It is a medical opinion that it is deemed that the disease caused by the physical properties of the deceased, such as high blood pressure and sulphism, etc., rather than by the latter, is naturally aggravated and caused death. In the case of the deceased, if the cause of death is not clearly revealed as in the case of the deceased and the cause of death is caused by the death caused by official duties, it is a consistent view of the Supreme Court (Supreme Court Decision 98Du3303 delivered on April 24, 1998).

Therefore, it is difficult to recognize a substantial causal relationship with the deceased's death due to official duties or official duties.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3, and 7 evidence (including branch numbers in case of virtual number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 2, and fact-finding with respect to the head of the Jeonnam Eup in this court, the gist of the plaintiff's assertion as to the whole purport of the pleading is that the deceased from September 2014.