1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit is resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. Basic facts and circumstances of dispositions;

A. C (hereinafter “the deceased”) married with D on November 11, 1977 with his birth in November 1950, resulting in the Defendant’s Intervenor B (hereinafter “the Intervenor”) and divorced from D on September 21, 1981.

On September 2, 1983, the deceased married with E, and led to F, G, and H (hereinafter “the deceased’s four children”) and resided with E, E, and separately from early 2006 through early 2007, in the Seo-gu Incheon International Apartment J (hereinafter “I apartment”) (hereinafter “I apartment”), and divorced from E on August 16, 2007.

B. The plaintiff, who was born in 1959, married with K around 1985, produced L, M, and N, and divorced on March 22, 1996.

On November 1, 2001, the Plaintiff filed a move-in report with the Incheon Seo-gu O-dong U-dong (hereinafter “O-dong”) P, and resided with his children. The Plaintiff frequently visited Qa Co., Ltd., Ltd., in which the Plaintiff worked as a selling member, and the Plaintiff started to act with the deceased. On May 8, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a move-in report with the I apartment, which is the deceased’s domicile, and maintained the resident registration until the deceased died.

C. On May 13, 2015, the Deceased died by falling the seal work at the site of the apartment outer wall site repair work.

The Intervenor, etc. claimed bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses to the Defendant upon the death of the Deceased.

However, in view of the deceased’s de facto marital relationship with the Plaintiff at the time of death, the Defendant decided on July 15, 2015 that only funeral expenses should be paid to the Intervenor, etc., and that bereaved family benefits should not be paid. On July 17, 2015, the Defendant decided to pay bereaved family benefits to the Plaintiff.

E. On December 17, 2015, the Intervenor, etc. filed a request for review to the Defendant against the Defendant’s determination on the site price for survivors’ benefits, but filed a request for review with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee. On June 23, 2016, the said Committee accepted the Intervenor, etc.’s assertion that the Plaintiff was not a de facto spouse of the Deceased, and received the survivors’ benefits against the Intervenor, etc.