1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, in addition to adding the judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion under paragraph (2) below, and as such, it is identical to the ground of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

(2) On the other hand, the Plaintiff asserts that, in accordance with the evidence No. 5, No. 7, and No. 8, when estimating the average working hours of the Deceased’s work day except for holidays, etc., the proximate causal relationship between the deceased’s length and the acute heart color can be acknowledged on the basis of the presumption. (3) The Plaintiff asserts that, on the other hand, the average working hours of the Deceased’s work day should be calculated at 48.4 hours per week per three months prior to the death, average 50.4 hours per week per six months prior to the death, and average 49.4 hours per week per one year prior to the death.

Even if the Plaintiff’s assertion that it is possible to calculate the working hours of the Deceased, it still does not reach the standard (if the working hours exceed the average of 60 hours per week (average of 64 hours per week during four weeks prior to the outbreak of illness) of the Notice of Ministry of Employment and Labor (2017-117, December 29, 2017), and (ii) [if the working hours per week during 12 weeks prior to the outbreak of illness exceed the average of 60 hours per week, the average working hours per week during 12 weeks prior to the outbreak of the disease exceeds 52 hours];

According to the above Ministry of Employment and Labor’s notification No. 1(c)(3) of the Ministry of Employment and Labor, even if the hours of work do not exceed an average of 52 hours per week during 12 weeks prior to the illness, the factors of increase in the burden of work

“Although it can be seen as “A”, only as a result of the description of evidence Nos. 5 through 8 and the fact-finding on D Co., Ltd. of this court, it is insufficient to recognize that the deceased’s work for 12 weeks prior to death was the degree of the increased work burden, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise

This view is different.