1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From August 20, 201, the network D (hereinafter “D”) was employed in the Green Love (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) located in Jyang-si, Namyang-si (hereinafter “Seoyang-si”) and was in charge of the collection, transportation, and disposal of wastes and recyclables.

B. On March 8, 2014, at around 20:00 after having worked at the night on March 8, 2014, the deceased returned home, and then was found to be dead at the toilet around 04:00 on March 9, 2014, the following day.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disaster”). C.

As the bereaved family members of the deceased, the plaintiffs A and B have been living together with the deceased at the time of the deceased's death, and the plaintiffs C, as the mother of the deceased's mother on March 11, 2014, have abandoned all inheritance (including death insurance).

Plaintiff

On April 30, 2014, A and B claimed the Defendant to pay bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses, but the Defendant: (a) is unclear about the cause of death of the deceased on October 17, 2014; (b) is not objectively confirmed the details of mental stress and physical burden due to the rapid change in the working environment and the increase in the workload; and (c) is deemed to have no sudden and occupational change; and (d) the applicant’s work performed by deeming the applicant to have no business change; (b) is deemed as ordinary business; (c) 'cerebrovascular (Presumption)’, an applicant-related disease, is deemed to have a proximate causal relation with the work.

(hereinafter referred to as “decision of refusal” as of October 17, 2014. Plaintiff A and B dissatisfied therewith filed a request for reexamination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee on January 2, 2015, but were dismissed on April 2, 2015. E. Meanwhile, Plaintiff C filed a claim for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses to the Defendant on or around December 2016, but the Defendant rendered a disposition of site pay (hereinafter referred to as “decision of refusal as of December 13, 2016”) on the same ground as that set forth in the foregoing paragraph (d) (hereinafter referred to as “decision of refusal as of December 13, 2016”). The fact that there is no dispute, and set forth in subparagraph 1.