1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. B, on June 1, 2012, under the joint employment of five companies, such as the petition farming association corporation (hereinafter “Seo-gu”) entrusted with the affairs of disposal of food wastes by Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “Seo-gu”), conducted the work of cleaning food wastes and cleaning the surrounding areas in the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government collection center (hereinafter “instant collection center”).

나. B은 2014. 11. 5. 10:08경 이 사건 집하장 내 재활용 선별작업장에서 고물상에 판매할 만한 고물을 선별하여 수거하던 중 후진하던 로더에 들이받혔고(이하 ‘이 사건 사고’라 한다), 병원으로 이송되었으나 같은 날 11:11경 직접사인 ‘골반의 으깸 손상’으로 사망하였다.

C. The Plaintiff, the spouse of the deceased B (hereinafter “the deceased”), filed a claim against the Defendant for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses. However, on June 4, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the determination of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses on the ground that “the accident in this case occurred among private activities performed during working hours, and thus does not constitute occupational accidents” on the ground that “the deceased was dead by a heavy equipment (roar) moving back from the place where the deceased was in charge of the duty to perform the duty to perform the duty to perform the duty to ensure that he was laid down at the place of a sorting 15 meters away from the place where he was in charge of the duty to perform the duty to perform the duty to ensure that he was found to have carried recycled goods collected by the deceased to one ton of the deceased’s freight truck and sold them on the secondhand, and thus, the accident in this case was confirmed as an accident unrelated to the deceased’s cleaning act of food waste, which is a matter of employment contract with the business owner.”

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant refusal disposition”). . [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap’s 1, 5, 9, 13 evidence, Gap’s 11-1 through 4, Eul’s 1 and 2 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. This.