beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On June 1, 2012, the Plaintiff’s wife (CB; hereinafter “the deceased”) is a person who entered the OSSB Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) and carried out business of selling cosmetics.
B. On February 9, 2014, the Deceased was employed from around 12:00 to 20:00 on Sundays, and was removed from his home, and was transferred to Korea University Hospital through Korea University Hospital by Korea National University on around 22:13. On February 9, 2014, the Deceased was diagnosed as brain-resistant, prop-supported, and brain-resistant transfusion due to serious brain ties of the left side of the public prosecutor.
(hereinafter referred to as “the instant injury and disease”). Around 00:20 on February 10, 2014, the Deceased was transferred to a hospital where her brain operation was conducted in 2007, and was not recovered, but died on February 13, 2014.
C. The Plaintiff asserted that the deceased’s death constitutes occupational accidents, and filed a claim for the payment of bereaved family’s benefits and funeral expenses. However, on June 14, 2017, the Defendant confirmed the injury and disease as a result of cerebrovascular and cerebrovascular in the medical record site, image materials, etc. The Defendant rendered a disposition on the bereaved family’s benefits and funeral site in accordance with the results of deliberation by the Committee on Determination of Occupational Diseases, in full view of the following factors: (a) the decedent is presumed to have been suffering from stress due to the change of work place due to the cosmetics sales promotion personnel; (b) the decedent is presumed to have suffered from stress due to the change of work place; (c) there is no extreme and critical stress to the extent that he/she may cause the injury and disease; (d) it is not confirmed that there was a sudden causal relation between his/her duties and the applicant’s disease; and (e) it is not found that there was an occupational injury and physical stress.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [The grounds for recognition] does not dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 7 (including each number).