The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 2, 2017, the network B (hereinafter referred to as “the network”) joined the standardized workplace for persons with disabilities C, a workplace for persons with disabilities, and performed the cleaning of vehicles at the studs department in D located in the Gu and Si until July 1, 2018. From July 2, 2018 to June 14, 2019, the network B (hereinafter referred to as “the network”) was in charge of collecting wastes from the department for environmental aestheticization in D to transport them to the collection center.

B. On June 14, 2019, the Deceased retired from around 15:00, and went to a locker at around 22:00 on the same day.

On October 16, 2019, the Plaintiff, the deceased, filed an application for the payment of bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses with the Defendant, claiming that the death of the deceased constitutes an occupational accident.

C. On November 28, 2019, the Defendant rendered a decision not to approve the Plaintiff’s above application (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “it is difficult to recognize that the deceased caused death, in full view of the time of the deceased’s work, the amount of work, specific work details, etc., on the ground that it is difficult to recognize that the deceased caused death due to his work cause.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7 and 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion was caused by stress caused by excessive work, the causal relationship between the deceased’s death and his/her work is recognized.

B. Determination 1) In order for the death to be recognized due to an occupational reason as stipulated in Article 5 subparag. 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the pertinent death was caused by the occupational reason, and there is a proximate causal relation between the occupational and the accident. In such a case, the evidence and the evidence mentioned above should be attested by the party asserting the causal relation between the employee’s occupational and the accident (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du8449, Dec. 26, 2003). 2) In full view of the following circumstances, comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire statements and arguments as stated in Articles 3, 4, 5, and 8, respectively.