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 November 12, 1998, the Plaintiff’s spouse B (hereinafter “the deceased”) joined C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) and worked at the personnel welfare department, border regional headquarters, and north orchard business office, etc., and on August 1, 200, the Plaintiff’s spouse worked as the head of a sales office or branch office, etc. after being appointed as the head of a sales office on August 1, 200.

On March 1, 2014, the deceased was appointed as the head of the D Support Center.

B. On April 7, 2015, the Deceased committed suicide by closing windows and entrance doors to prevent a smoke from spreading within his/her own car.

C. On October 11, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for the payment of bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses, arguing that “The deceased’s death constitutes occupational accidents, since he/she was under serious occupational stress due to a large amount of debt inevitably borne by the deceased to maintain his/her business performance, a poor business performance of the D Support Center, a conflict with E, who is a direct superior, and thereby committed suicide under the circumstances where his/her normal perception, ability to choose action, and mental suppression has been significantly deteriorated.”

However, on September 20, 2017, the Defendant: (a) rendered a determination of the bereaved family’s benefits and funeral site rent on the ground that “the deceased did not have any objective material to deem that he had borne a large amount of debt in connection with his business; and (b) even if he had borne a large amount of debt in connection with his business, this is merely an individual’s lawsuit beyond the ordinary operating method, and thus, cannot be recognized as a proximate causal relation

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

On November 10, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, but the said Committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for reexamination on January 11, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence No. 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. This.