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 March 1, 1982, the deceased B (hereinafter “the deceased”), who is the husband of the Plaintiff, was merged with the Chungcheong Bank (hereinafter “Seoul Bank”) on March 1, 1982, and was employed as a branch office from April 1, 2007.

B. On March 2, 2012, the Deceased returned home with other employees and sleeps. The Deceased’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s

C. As a result of the autopsy of the deceased, the private person of the deceased was found to be a acute funeral due to internal causes.

The Plaintiff asserted that there exists a proximate causal relationship between the deceased’s death and his duties, and claimed the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses. However, on April 23, 2013, the Defendant rendered a disposition of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses on the ground that there is no proximate causal relationship between the deceased’s death and his/her duties on the ground that there was no special burden factor (such as rapid change of work environment, increase of duties, overwork, stress, etc.) to be recognized as a cardio-cerebrovascular disease in the work content before the deceased’s death was confirmed.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.

The Plaintiff filed a request for review on the instant disposition with the Defendant, and the Defendant rendered a decision to dismiss the above request for review on October 2013.

Therefore, the plaintiff filed a request for reexamination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, but on February 27, 2014, the committee ruled that the above request for reexamination is dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, 3-1 to 4, 5-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The new bank, where the Plaintiff asserted, worked for the Deceased, shall be two per year.