1. On January 20, 2016, the Defendant’s revocation of the disposition of bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses against the Plaintiff on January 20, 2016.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 1, 1985, the Plaintiff’s husband (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s husband”) joined the Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor Company”) and served as the manager affiliated with Biz business unit Biz business unit Biz business unit in the Seoul metropolitan area from May 2, 2014, and around 07:29 on May 19, 2014, the Plaintiff’s husband was used as the Plaintiff’s husband during his work hours at the Dongdaemun-ro 214 subway station platform in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant accident”), and was discovered by the Defendant’s assistant, but was sent to the Defendant’s junior hospital in the 119 lane, but died on the same day on the same day.

B. On May 19, 2014, the body draft written by a doctor affiliated with a sexual biopia hospital is written by the deceased’s direct private person.

C. As a result of the autopsy conducted by the appraiser D affiliated with the National Institute of Scientific Investigation on the Deceased, the deceased’s private person is a dead blood heart disease.

The Plaintiff asserted that the deceased’s death constitutes an occupational accident and applied for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses to the Defendant. However, on January 20, 2016, the Defendant decided that the deceased’s injury benefits and funeral expenses will not be paid on the ground that the deceased’s “the deceased” was the average working hours of 32 hours per week prior to the occurrence of the instant accident, 32 hours per week average working hours of 4 weeks, and 36 hours per week average working hours of 12 weeks, there was no increase of working hours of not more than 30% per week prior to the death, and that the work hours of not more than 30% per week average working hours of not more than 60% per week, as a result of the autopsy on the deceased’s death due to a brudial and submerent disease caused by the occupational reason, and that it was difficult to see the death due to the occupational reason.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.

The plaintiff filed a request for review to the defendant, but was dismissed on May 16, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 8, 17, and .