1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The husband B (her husband of March 1979) of the Plaintiff during the disposition was on December 7, 2013 while serving as a public official belonging to the C Viewing Service, he/she was present at the C Viewing D Staff Group D, and was 10:00,000, and was transferred to the hospital as he/she lost consciousness for about 30 minutes after having arrived at the meal place at around 12:30, but died on the same day at around 14:24.

(hereinafter “instant disaster.” The Defendant, on March 3, 2014, rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of bereaved family’s compensation on the ground that B (hereinafter “the deceased”) died of his/her physical factors regardless of his/her official duties, etc.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 9 (including provisional numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was from July 2013 to be in charge of new duties, and the Plaintiff’s failure to perform his/her duties had been subject to the quality by his/her superior, and had much stress on the treatment of civil petitions.

These stress served as the risk incentive of cardio-cerebrovascular diseases, and in particular, the Deceased was accompanied by a fluorous movement in the state of his/her death due to the health examination before the accident of this case.

In full view of these circumstances, proximate causal relation with the deceased’s death can be recognized.

B. 1) The deceased’s duty records were appointed as a local public official for viewing on September 2, 2005 and worked as a local public official for viewing on September 2, 2005. From July 3, 2013 to July 3, 2013, the deceased was in charge of new duties (such as excavation of cultural heritage, consultation on State and public land, etc., and consultation on relay of transmission lines, etc.).

In relation to the excavation and excavation work of cultural heritage, the deceased applied for permission for the alteration of the current state of buried cultural heritage to the Cultural Heritage Administration on July 9, 2013, but the Cultural Heritage Administration rejected the application on August 27, 2013 on the ground that the excavation and inspection agency is inappropriate.

Accordingly, on September 17, 2013, the Deceased applied for permission again on September 17, 2013 and on October 4, 2013.