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 June 25, 2013, the Plaintiff was a child of B, and B entered “D” stores located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant stores”) and was in charge of the duties of care, etc. on a commercial basis.

B. At around 16:00 on February 16, 2014, B worked at the instant available room and left alone. At around 21:00, Dong fee was not visible while preparing for the instant available room. They discovered B, with the knowledge of the fact that they did not break out, but B was found to have turned out due to Dong fee, which was broken off to leave at around 01:35 on the following day, and was found to have turned out as against the floor of the Defendant and died.

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

The death of the deceased in the body was presumed to be a non-cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral typha, the cause of the death of the deceased.

On May 25, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act. On May 25, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the decision not to pay survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses on the ground that “the causal relation between the deceased’s death and his/her duties is not recognized.”

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, Eul evidence No. 1-7, Eul evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion had no special pest, and the deceased worked for 10 hours every day including night work 4 hours every day, and the death caused by an excessive workload and stress, which led to the death of non-cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebrovas. Therefore, the instant disposition to determine that there is no proximate causal relation between the deceased’s work and the death should be revoked as it is unlawful.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(a) An entry in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

B. Whether to acknowledge the proximate causal relationship between the deceased’s work and the death (1) and the duty of the deceased (A) of this case from June 25, 2013.