1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 2, 2012, the Plaintiff’s husband, the deceased B (hereinafter “the deceased”) is a person who entered the Plaintiff Company C (hereinafter “instant Company”) located in Bupyeong-si (hereinafter “instant Company”) and performed the business team’s duties.

B. On April 20, 2015, at around 19:33, the Deceased was used in a restaurant located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, for a high school and a suppers of a house, and was transferred through the 119 emergency squad to the hospital of the 1,00-do National University, and was diagnosed as a acute core border (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”) and was diagnosed as an emergency and killed on April 22, 2015.

The person directly in charge of the deceased’s death is written in the death diagnosis report in the form of “sacriffing with heart,” and the preceding person’s death.

C. On July 22, 2016, the Plaintiff claimed that the deceased’s death constituted an occupational accident, and filed a claim for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses. However, on October 14, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses in accordance with the results of the deliberation by the Committee for Determination of the Occupational Disease Disease in light of the following: (a) on October 14, 2016, the Defendant did not confirm the burden factors (e.g., a sudden change in working environment, sudden increase in work volume, excessive stress, etc.); and (b) it is difficult to deem the deceased’s death to be excessive in working hours prior to the outbreak; and (c) it is difficult to recognize the proximate causal relationship between the work and the cause of the death on the ground that it is difficult to recognize the proximate causal relationship between the work and the death on the ground of the natural aggravation of the existing individual disease (e.g.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

On April 9, 2018, the Board of Audit and Inspection decided to dismiss the plaintiff's request for examination.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 13, 22, 24, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and 6, respectively.