1. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 20, 190, the Plaintiff’s husband B (CB, hereinafter “the deceased”) was used on November 20, 1990, and was approved by the Defendant as an occupational injury and injury by “high blood pressure brain stroke, electric brain stroke, and electric strokeel fever (hereinafter “existing approved injury and injury”). By November 30, 191, the Defendant was judged as disability No. 2 subparag. 5 after receiving treatment for the existing approved injury and injury.

B. On September 4, 2014, the Deceased was sent to an emergency room in the D Hospital by being subject to the accident that was going beyond his/her home stairs (hereinafter “instant accident”), and was diagnosed as “the damage to the number of trees, the end of his/her pelles, the end of his/her pelles, and the end of his/her pelles” (hereinafter “the instant injury”).

C. Meanwhile, the Deceased provided medical care at multiple hospitals, such as D hospitals, in relation to the instant medical branch. From May 12, 2016, the Deceased died on May 26, 2016, which is the direct death of the Deceased, the “bruptivity color”, the intermediate event, and the “high blood pressure.”

On June 30, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses on the ground that the death of the deceased was caused by aggravation of the existing approved injury or aftermathing, and constitutes occupational accidents. However, on July 19, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses (hereinafter “instant site-based disposition”) on the ground that there was no causal relationship between the deceased’s death and the existing approved injury and disease.

E. On September 13, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the recognition of additional injury or disease to the instant injury or disease, but the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s application on October 26, 2016 on the ground that the causal link between the previous injury or disease was not recognized in the instant injury or disease.

(F) The Plaintiff filed a petition for review seeking revocation of the instant site pay disposition with the Defendant, but was dismissed on November 8, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] There is no dispute.