1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the deceased B (hereinafter “the deceased”).

On September 9, 1998, the Deceased was crashed on the eightth floor while performing the work of installing a mold at the construction site of Pyeongtaek Gyeong apartment as an employee belonging to the Sungsung Industrial Co., Ltd.

The Deceased, due to the foregoing accident, was wounded on the part of the “Jaman’s Woman’s Woman’s Woman’s Woman’s Woman’s (hereinafter “instant approved injury”) and was recognized as a occupational accident.

Until March 2002, the Deceased was given medical care at home after receiving class 1 No. 3 of the disability grade remaining with a significant obstacle to the post-treatment system function in a medical care institution.

B. The Deceased was beyond his home on February 25, 2016 and February 26, 2016.

On February 27, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) around 08:00, the Deceased moved to the hospital by reporting that the Deceased was diving from the inside room and was deprived of consciousness; and (b) the Deceased died at the heart around 17:03 on the same day.

A private person listed in the death diagnosis report of the deceased shall be as follows:

(A) The inter-satising of the causes (e.g., inter-satising) (c) of the cause (e.g., intermediate pre-satis) of the suspension of direct death (e.g., inter-satis

C. The Plaintiff claimed for the payment of bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses to the Defendant, but on May 19, 2016, the Defendant rendered a bereaved family benefit and funeral funeral expenses disposition (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the causal relationship between the deceased’s death and the deceased’s death was not recognized.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. While the Plaintiff’s assertion was receiving a pedestrian practice at his own home while taking care, the Plaintiff’s death took place as “the blood transfusion from an outer light.” The Plaintiff’s accident during the pedestrian practice has a causal relationship with the approved branch of this case.

Therefore, there is a proximate causal relationship between the deceased’s death and the deceased’s death on the recognition of the instant case, so the instant disposition should be revoked as unlawful.

(b)a fact of recognition;