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 March 31, 2015, Non-party B (hereinafter “the deceased”), the husband of the Plaintiff, was enrolled in Non-party 62-2 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “company”) for the construction of the Non-party Mandong-dong Non-party 62-2, and was employed as a contact for the purpose. On April 18, 2015, Non-party 2, the Plaintiff was killed on April 20, 2015, after being diagnosed as “the blood of the mandong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong Non-party 1 and was used as a contact for the purpose, and was sent to an emergency room for the hospital and was examined, and died on April 20, 2015.

B. On July 10, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the payment of bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses with the Defendant, claiming that the deceased’s instant injury and disease constituted occupational disease. However, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition that the Plaintiff would not pay bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses on November 4, 2015 on the ground that it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relationship between the cause of death and the duty of the deceased.

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the request for examination to the Defendant, but was dismissed on February 23, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap 1 through 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no obvious documentary disease is highly probable, and there is a high probability that cerebral sulphism might have occurred in a situation in which the Deceased may independently engage in melting work that requires a long time tension and concentration due to poor working conditions and may continuously cause a rise in blood pressure by receiving physical and mental stress.

Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition, which reported differently, was unlawful even though the deceased’s work had influenced the outbreak of the injury or aggravation of the natural process of the injury or disease.

B. In order to be recognized as “the death caused by an occupational reason” under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, there should be a proximate causal relation between the work and the accident, and in this case, the worker’s work and the accident.