1. On February 23, 2018, the disposition that the Defendant rendered against the Plaintiffs on February 23, 2018 as bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses shall be revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 19, 190, Plaintiff A’s husband, and Plaintiff B’s father (hereinafter “the deceased”) suffered injury, such as Nos. 3, 4, 5, 8, 5, and 5, while working on March 19, 190, such as the first floor and the first floor, the 3, 4, 8, 8, and 5, and the lower part of the lower part of the body, which were recognized as an occupational accident by the Defendant. As to this, the Defendant received medical care approval for the first part of the 3,4, 4, 5, 5, and the first part of the 3,4, 4, 5, the lower part of the body, the lower part of the body, the lower part of the body, the 5, and the lower part of the body, and the lower part of the body.

B. On December 20, 2017, the Deceased was transferred to an emergency room of the E Hospital via the 119 Emergency Squads, and received continuous hospitalized treatment at the said hospital, but died on December 29, 2017.

The death diagnosis report on the deceased is written by the direct deathist as “debrison.”

C. On February 23, 2018, the Plaintiff B, who performed the funeral of the Plaintiff A and the Deceased, claimed that the death of the Deceased constituted an occupational accident and claimed the payment of bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses to the Defendant. However, on February 23, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition of bereaved family benefits and funeral funeral expenses against the Plaintiffs and F in accordance with the advisory doctor’s opinion that “It is difficult to acknowledge a proximate causal relationship between the deceased’s death and the death as the deceased’s death occurred after being infected with avian influenza and died due to the aggravation of blood transfusions.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The Disposition in this case is without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion 1 chronic renal failure patients are vulnerable to infections compared to the general public, and the general public are unlikely to die even if they are infected with avian influenza, but in the case of chronic renal failure patients, there is a high probability of death due to aggravation of pulmonary pulmonary dysty and styposiss.

The Deceased is an occupational accident.