1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. On October 19, 2015, the bereaved family’s benefits and funeral expenses paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff.

1. Each description of evidence 1, 2, 1, and 4 of evidence 1, 1, 1, and 4 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings;

A. The plaintiff is a female student of B.

B as an employee of the New-BPP Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”), he was in charge of the operation of commuting buses to and from work of C employees. On November 29, 2014, around 06:20, when driving commuting buses, he was killed on the same day at around 06:34 on the same day.

(hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”). B

The National Institute of Scientific Investigation determined that the deceased’s private person was “the blood under non-explosion based on cerebral malule (cerebral chronsis)” after conducting the autopsy and appraisal on the deceased.

C. On August 20, 2015, the Plaintiff claimed for bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act against the Defendant. On October 19, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision not to pay bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that there is no proximate causal relation between the deceased’s work and the death (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was accumulated as a team leader of the instant company’s task, such as various reports, dispatch, maintenance, etc., in addition to commuting bus operation, and as a team leader of the instant company, work as short as 10 hours a day without holidays.

Since the deceased died while on duty due to such excess, the disposition of this case which held that there is no proximate causal relation between the deceased’s work and the death is unlawful.

B. In full view of the following facts, the following facts can be acknowledged in light of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 24, 28, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 6 and the purport of the whole arguments:

1) The Deceased’s health condition as a deceased) was the age of 44 years at the time of the Deceased’s death.

B. From January 2012, the deceased is specially identified before his death.