1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff’s father, the father of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the deceased”), was a person who worked in D, a solid water collection business entity, from January 1, 2009, and was driving a house to supply the closing to the business entity around August 7, 2015, while driving the house in order to supply it to the business entity at around 13:53, the deceased lost the consciousness as the heart at the front of the F. E in Seoul Jung-gu.

B. On August 11, 2015, the Deceased was sent to G Hospital and received cardio-cerebral scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic s

(B) Of the above diagnosis soldiers, the “scopic scopic scopical scopical scopical scopical scopical scopics of the front wall” (hereinafter “instant injury and disease”).

The Deceased died on August 17, 2015, after being hospitalized at the above hospital after the surgery, around 13:26.

The death diagnosis report on the deceased is written by the person directly in charge of the heart shock, and the person in charge of the preceding work is written in the form of a acute alarm.

On November 23, 2015, the Plaintiffs requested the Defendant to pay bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses. However, on March 8, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision to pay bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses on the ground that “the deceased’s death is not deemed as a death due to an occupational reason, in full view of the result of the deceased’s accident and his/her work type, etc. and the result of deliberation by the Seoul Occupational Disease Determination Committee.”

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.

On May 13, 2016, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a petition for reexamination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, but was ruled dismissed on June 30, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 3 through 5, 7, 8, Gap evidence 11-2, 3, Gap evidence 13-2, Eul evidence 1-2, and Eul evidence 1-1.