1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. On January 13, 2015, the Defendant’s disposition of bereaved family benefits and funeral site pay to the Plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

On August 2, 1994, the deceased B, the husband of the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), was employed as the function and representative of the Economic Team in the branch of the D branch.

On July 16, 2014, the deceased worked at around 07:32 to sell and deliver general farming materials. At around 16:00, the deceased left the office for delivery of materials (e.g., 107) and left the office at around 21:00 after leaving the office for delivery. At around 21:00, the deceased was scheduled as the next day of 22:00, and returned back after purchasing her wife and her prepareds to purchase preparations for swimming experience activities.

At around 23:30, the Deceased complained of the truth with a sudden twos, and used the symptoms leading to the change in the room, and was transferred to the hospital at around 00:32 following the report to the 119 emergency squad by his family at around 00:13.

On July 29, 2014, the Deceased, who had received treatment at a hospital, died due to brain liver function department and cardiopulmonary suspension.

On November 10, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the death of the deceased was an occupational accident, and applied for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses to the Defendant. However, on January 13, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the determination of the amount of survivors’ benefits and funeral funeral expenses (hereinafter “instant refusal disposition”) on the ground that “it is difficult for the deceased to deem that the deceased was subject to considerable course of business or stress, and it is difficult to find a proximate causal link between the deceased’s duties and the cerebrovascular, which is the cause of death, and the outbreak of cerebrscular infection.”

The Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for reexamination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, but the said Committee dismissed it on May 21, 2015.

[Grounds for recognition] The deceased who asserted whether there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the rejection disposition of this case is legitimate.