1. On December 29, 2014, the Defendant revoked the disposition of bereaved family benefits and funeral site pay to the Plaintiff on December 29, 2014.

2...

Details of the disposition

The deceased B (hereinafter referred to as the "the deceased") is a person who has worked for C from February 20, 2006 to the Magjin-C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Magjin-C").

On July 21, 2014, the Deceased completed the duties of 20:43 on July 21, 2014, and was in front of the E golf range in the Hanan-gun, Hanan-gun, Hannam-gun, and the Deceased was employed on the road.

In July 22, 2014, the deceased transferred to Samsung Changwon Hospital, but died of severe diversity damage as a direct death on July 22, 2014.

On November 13, 2014, the Plaintiff, as his spouse, claimed against the Defendant’s creative branch office, that the deceased died due to an occupational accident under Article 37(1)1(c) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act”), and sought the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses. However, on December 29, 2014, the Defendant’s creative branch office did not deem that the deceased was due to an occupational accident under Article 37(1)1(c) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”). As such, the Plaintiff rendered a decision on the amount of survivors’ benefits and funeral funeral expenses (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

Although the Plaintiff filed a petition for review with the Defendant seeking revocation of the instant disposition (see Article 103(1)1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act), the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s petition on March 24, 2015, and the Plaintiff filed a petition for review with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee (see Article 106 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act), but the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s petition for reexamination on May 22, 2015.

[Based on the basis of recognition] The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition and the overall purport of the pleading in the absence of dispute, Gap’s evidence 1-2, Gap’s evidence 2-3, Eul’s evidence 4-1, Eul’s evidence 1-2, Eul’s whole purport, and the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition and the overall purport of the pleading was an accident while using the dysium, which was provided by the dysium closeness as the employer, and the distance between the deceased’s home