1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 1, 1989, the Plaintiff’s husband’s husband (hereinafter “the deceased”) received medical care benefits with respect to “cerebrovascular, brain salone, ethalone, ethalone, ethalalone, distribution coordinate and salted to the right, ethal part of the upper right, ethal part, ethal part, ethal part, ethal part, ethal part, ethal part, ethal part, ethal part, ethal part, ethal part, ethal part, ethal part, ethal part, ethal part, ethal part, ethal part, and ethal part, e.g., e., the deceased’s husband (hereinafter “the deceased’s husband”), and received medical care benefits with respect to approved injury on March 31, 199, and received disability pension corresponding thereto directly from Daejeon Hospital in Daejeon Metropolitan City on July 23:10.

B. On August 18, 2014, the Plaintiff claimed payment of bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses to the Defendant on the ground that the deceased’s death was caused by an approved injury. However, on September 5, 2014, the Defendant rendered a decision on bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that it is difficult to recognize a medical causal relationship between the deceased and the deceased’s death on the grounds that it is difficult to recognize the medical causal relationship.

C. On December 10, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a petition for review seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Defendant’s president, but was dismissed on January 26, 2015, and again filed a petition for review seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee on April 13, 2015, but was also dismissed on May 28, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 1, 3, 5 and Eul evidence 1 to 3, 6, and 8 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion continues for a long period of time due to an approved injury, whose approved injury and disease has aggravated, and caused a merger and death. As such, there is a causal relationship between the deceased’s death and the approved injury and thus, it is a different premise.