1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. On July 3, 2012, the Defendant rendered a decision on the bereaved family’s benefits and funeral expenses to the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 28, 201, the Plaintiff’s husband, was a worker belonging to Dae Young Goods Distribution Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Ma Young Goods Distribution”), and was sent back to the hospital after having been sleeped due to the Plaintiff’s husband’s break, while engaging in the work of cutting off the ship’s equipment in Twitler around 19:30 on December 28, 201, while serving as a worker belonging to Dae Young Goods Distribution Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Ma Young Goods”).

B. The deceased died while sending back to a hospital, and the deceased’s report on the autopsy was directly indicated as “the presumption of acute funeral” as a private person, and the autopsy against the deceased was not conducted.

C. The Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the payment of bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, but on July 3, 2012, the Defendant rendered a decision on bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the deceased was not a worker under the Labor Standards Act.

The plaintiff filed a request for examination against the defendant, but was dismissed on December 24, 2012.

The Plaintiff again filed a request for reexamination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, but on July 10, 2013, the Deceased was dismissed on the ground that it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relation with his/her duties because the cause of death was not revealed as a result of failing to conduct a autopsy.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2 (including additional number), Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The legality of disposition.

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is clear that the deceased’s death took place due to excessive work for a long time, the burden of work sharply increased in the short period immediately before the death, or due to changes in the working environment. Therefore, proximate causal relation between the deceased and the deceased’s work may be sufficiently recognized even without the autopsy.

Nevertheless, the instant disposition that deemed that the death of the deceased does not constitute an occupational accident is unlawful.

B. Facts of recognition 1) Plaintiff’s work status