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 March 23, 2011, B, the Plaintiff’s husband, was employed as a driver for having been employed by C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”), and died on December 14:20 on December 28, 2011, around 07:55, the Plaintiff left a coffee office in the office of Nonparty Co., Ltd., and left the office to gather her fry from the front side of the vehicle parked on the outer wall after several subdivisions, and was found by D, the same worker, who was an employee, while serving as a driver for having been employed by the Plaintiff.

The death diagnosis letter issued by the above hospital is written by the deceased B (hereinafter referred to as the "the deceased") in an urgent emulative color.

B. On January 12, 2012, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to pay bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses on the ground that the deceased’s death constitutes occupational accidents.

C. The Defendant, on March 26, 2012, issued a disposition of survivors’ benefits and funeral site pay (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that, within 24 hours prior to the occurrence, the occurrence of a sudden and difficult incident related to the deceased’s work and the rapid change in the work environment are not objectively confirmed, and that the fact of receiving physical or mental load was not verified to the extent that it could have an obvious influence on the normal function in relation to the work prior to the outbreak, and that medical opinions thereon are not found to have proximate causal relation with the work, as the cause of death was determined as a disease that occurred regardless of the work.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 11, Eul evidence 2, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the deceased was employed in the non-party company, and the accident of this case occurred, was chronicly heavy due to a continuous increase in the quantity and time of work compared to the daily work of the same worker for about nine months before the occurrence of the accident of this case.