1. The disposition that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on September 4, 2018 as bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 8, 2009, the deceased B (CB; hereinafter “the deceased”) joined D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) as a taxi driver, and retired on May 31, 2014, but returned to work on July 1, 2016.

B. At around 10:00 on March 22, 2018, the Deceased was placed on the floor of the head while crossing from the edge of the E market in front of the C market in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si (one-lane in the middle and long distance distance in the G market in the middle and long distance in the middle of the four-lanes).

(hereinafter “instant accident”). From March 25, 2018, around 06:20 on March 25, 2018, the Deceased died of a serious cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral Spa, which was caused by the instant accident.

C. The Plaintiff, the deceased’s spouse, claimed that the deceased’s death should be recognized as occupational accidents, and claimed the Defendant to pay survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses.

However, on September 4, 2018, the Defendant decided to pay the bereaved family's benefits and funeral's site level on the ground that "No clear and detailed evidence is confirmed as to which reason the deceased illegally crosss a road, and there is no basis for the deceased to have should have cross the road without permission for necessary incidental activities to use toilets or perform his duties in the market during working hours, and traffic accidents occurring during the unauthorized crossing do not constitute traffic accidents caused by private acts in violation of the Road Traffic Act rather than those caused by the deceased's duty to operate the taxi, and thus, it is not possible to acknowledge a proximate causal relation between the deceased's duties and the instant accident."

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that he/she was killed of a toilet located in the E market due to traffic accidents in order to see the melting side during the taxi operation.