1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 1, 2013, the network C (hereinafter referred to as “the network”) joined a wooden and water shop (hereinafter “instant company”) in which the company engaged in printing business, etc. as of July 1, 2013.

B. On October 26, 2013, around 05:10 on October 26, 2013, the Deceased was engaged in night work at the foregoing company, and was used as a sponsor after being sponsored and disturbed by the auxiliary workers, and the Deceased was seated by sponsoring the Deceased, but the Deceased lost consciousness thereafter.

At the time of the arrival of the 119 rescue team upon the report of the auxiliary workers, the deceased had no beer and the heart was suspended. While the rescue team members conducted cardiopulmonary resuscitation and sent back to a nearby National University Hospital, the deceased died on October 26, 2013, as a result, on the presumption of cardiopulmonary dong, a direct death (hereinafter “the instant injury”).

C. On December 18, 2013, Plaintiff A’s father, Plaintiff B, as the mother of the deceased, claimed that the deceased died from an occupational accident, and that the bereaved family’s benefits and funeral expenses were paid to the Defendant. However, on February 17, 2014, the Defendant rendered the bereaved family’s benefits and funeral expenses (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiffs on the ground that the deceased’s death appears to have been caused by aggravation of existing diseases, such as high blood pressure and urology, etc., and that it is difficult to recognize relevance to the work due to lack of confirmation of occupational department and stress that could cause the death before the outbreak.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 4-1 through 5, 7, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. At the time of the death of the Deceased, the Plaintiffs asserted that the deceased worked in hazardous chemicals emitted from printing excessive, the instant company was the most bad time during one year, and the time of the deceased’s work was considerably long.

As a result, the deceased has been engaged in misappropriation.