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 September 1, 2004, the deceased B (CB; hereinafter “the deceased”) entered the E Co., Ltd. located in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant company”) and worked as a boiler AS (S) engineer.

B. From the end of January 2014, the Deceased was hospitalized at the F General Hospital on February 16, 2014 due to the aggravation of heat and weather symptoms from the end of February 14, 2014, and was hospitalized at the F General Hospital on February 16, 2014. Although the hospital was hospitalized after the diagnosis of pulmonary collection, the hospital was hospitalized on February 24, 2014, but the symptoms of pulmonary dysium 04:40 on February 24, 2014 aggravated the pulmonary dysium dysium, which is an intermediate event, died after the middle line’s acute dys

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disease”) the deceased’s cause of death is C.

On March 28, 2014, the Plaintiff, the wife of the Deceased, claimed for the payment of bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses to the Defendant by asserting that the death of the Deceased constitutes an occupational accident. However, on May 27, 2014, the Defendant confirmed that there was an unfasible opinion in light of the visual opinion on February 17, 2014, and that the death of the Deceased was caused by rapid aggravation of pulmonary convergence, and that there was no proof of occupational negligence, stress, etc. to the degree that the pulmonary concentration would have been caused, and there was a opinion suspected of being suffering from urology as a result of the health examination. Accordingly, it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relationship between the deceased’s rapid aggravation of pulmonary value and his work, on the ground that the death of the Deceased cannot be recognized as an occupational accident as a result of the Determination Committee on Determination of the Seoul Occupational Disease’s Death, and the

D) The Plaintiff filed a petition for reexamination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, but the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s petition for reexamination on November 12, 2014. [In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Gap’s evidence No. 17, Gap’s evidence No. 18-1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion for a long period of time.