1. The Defendant’s decision on November 19, 201 to compensate for survivors’ compensation rendered against the Plaintiff on November 19, 2014 is revoked.

2...

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties or may be acknowledged by taking into account the following facts: Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 2-1, 2-2, 3-1, 3-2, 5-1, 6, 8, 22-1, 22-2, and 3-2, and the whole purport of the arguments.

On June 20, 2014, the network C, working as the teacher of the B Middle School Health Department at the Daegu East District Office of Education (hereinafter referred to as the “net C”), was involved in the sports participation and the sports progress by leading students belonging to the 2014 KBS (KBS) National KBS, which was implemented in Yangyang-gun, Gangwon-do. On June 23, 2014, he participated in the sports and the sports progress. On June 19:30, 2014, after completing the sports participation and operation, etc., he/she went to the boarding school after having provided meals at the neighboring restaurant at around 20:00 and went to the boarding school at around 21:30 of the same day, but he/she was found to have been used in the boarding school on the same day.

The Deceased immediately transferred 119 first-aid hospital to the hospital, but the deceased died at around 22:45 on the same day as his/her direct death on the same day.

B. After that, the Plaintiff, a wife of the Deceased, filed a claim against the Defendant for compensation of bereaved family on the ground that the deceased died due to a disaster caused by excessive performance of official duties, and the Defendant, on November 17, 2014, acknowledged that the deceased died due to excessive performance of official duties, etc. However, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s failure to conduct health care, such as drinking and smoking, even though the deceased’s treatment was for a climatic disease, such as dysia and high blood pressure, constitutes a case of gross negligence under Article 62(3) of the Public Officials Pension Act and Article 15 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s gross negligence constitutes a case where one-half of the bereaved family’s compensation was reduced (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On January 20, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a petition for review seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Defendant’s Public Official Pension Benefit Review Committee, but was dismissed on April 1, 2015.

2. This.