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 May 1, 2014, the Plaintiff’s husband (hereinafter “the deceased”) entered the Plaintiff Company C (hereinafter “instant Company”) and served as the head of the Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Management Office (the head of the DNA Apartment Building Support Center).

B. On October 31, 2015, the Deceased, along with some of the employees of the D Apartment Management Office, was used in the vicinity of the 10:00 luxic acid, and was urgently transmitted to the Gangwon-do Speedy Medical Center through the Young Fire Station, and died around 12:07.

C. The Plaintiff asserted that the deceased’s death constitutes an occupational accident, and filed a claim for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses. However, on June 23, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition on the bereaved family’s benefits and funeral’s non-site payment in accordance with the results of the review by the Seoul Committee for Determination of Disease in Services that “it is deemed that there was stress on the citizen’s civil petition and the extension of the contract due to the characteristics of the deceased’s work, but it is not confirmed that there was an occupational burden for not more than 24 hours prior to the occurrence and one week prior to the outbreak, and that there was an excessive burden for the four weeks prior to the outbreak and 12 weeks prior to the outbreak, and that the stress the deceased’s death cannot be deemed as a direct factor that may cause a acute cardiopulmonary disease.”

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, but the said Committee rendered a ruling dismissing the said request on October 20, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 9, 11, 12, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 deceased did not leave the records on commuting because he did not affix his commuting card, but did not leave the workplace.