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”) worked for the agenda accounting corporation from November 1, 200 to March 1, 2005, from March 30, 2005 to September 30, 2015, respectively, and worked for the accounting corporation in the new era from October 1, 2015.

B. On October 16, 2015, the Deceased participated in the corporate training held in a new accounting firm era. On the same day, the Deceased complained of the body of the deceased.

On October 19, 2015, the Deceased was found to have no consciousness and pulmonary care while receiving medical care at his own home without attending the company, and through the 119 Emergency Vehicles, the Deceased was sent to the Korea National University Hospital for about 46 minutes of cardiopulmonary resuscitation and the heart was restored.

Until November 19, 2015, the Deceased transferred to the Dvalescent Hospital on the same day, but eventually died on November 20, 2015, following day.

C. The Plaintiff, the deceased’s spouse, claimed that the deceased’s death constituted an occupational accident, and filed a claim for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses with the Defendant. However, on September 9, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition of survivors’ benefits and funeral funeral expenses (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “the death of the deceased is difficult to recognize the causal relationship with his/her work and death, taking account of the result of the deliberation by the Seoul Committee for Determination of Occupational Diseases, etc. on the Determination of Seoul Occupational Diseases, on the ground that it is difficult to recognize the causal relationship with his/her acute merger caused by c

On January 20, 2017, the Plaintiff, dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a request for reexamination to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, but the said Committee decided to dismiss the Plaintiff’s request for reexamination.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, 9 through 13, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that there was a urine disease on the deceased, but through insulgn pumps, etc.