1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the deceased’s husband B (hereinafter “the deceased”) contracted in a fixed state from September 2005 to September 1, 2005, which is the deceased’s husband. This is due to a natural aggravation process of brain real-resistant transfusion, the deceased’s husband, and the deceased’s husband.

It does not act as an independent cause such as high blood pressure in the death of the deceased, but rather as an inherent cause such as an independent cause, the natural progress of low-tension diseases, such as high blood pressure, etc., due to long-term surgery, led to the death of the deceased, resulting in a cerebrovascular disease due to a change in the bloodline, such as the cryrosis, etc., and thus, proximate causal relation between the death and the death of the deceased is recognized.

Therefore, the death of the deceased is an occupational accident.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. In order to recognize the death due to an occupational reason under Article 5 subparag. 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, there is a proximate causal relation between the business and the accident as well as the death during the performance of the duties. In this case, the causal relation between the employee’s business and the accident should be proved by the assertion of such causal relation. Thus, if the employee’s death was during the performance of his/her duties, it cannot be presumed to be caused by the employee’s death due to his/her duties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu16459, Apr. 23, 199). The existence of proximate causal relation should be determined based on the health and physical condition of the employee concerned not by the average but by the average person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu16459, Apr. 23, 199). In addition, the degree of causal relation should not be proved clearly by medical and natural science, in consideration of all the circumstances, even if there is a proximate causal relation between the business and disaster (see, etc.).