1. On March 22, 2017, the disposition that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on March 22, 2017 as bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 23, 2011, the deceased B (Cre; hereinafter “the deceased”) entered a company D (hereinafter “instant company”) which manufactures electronic components using the mixed technology and worked at the main place of business of the instant company (hereinafter “instant business place”).

B. On August 29, 2014, the Deceased was diagnosed as “satise fymp fym fym fym fym fym fym fym fym fym fym fym fym fym fym fym fym fym fym fym fym fym fy

C. On October 29, 2015, the Plaintiff, a spouse of the Deceased, claimed for the payment of bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses to the Defendant.

On March 22, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition of bereaved family’s benefits and funeral site-based vision on the ground that “benching agents (Toluene, siren, etc.) used in the neighboring process without treating chemicals in the punching process performed by the deceased, and through the mutual assistance system, and exposed to saldededehyde. However, the exposure period is shorter and there is insufficient epidemological basis on the relation between the instant upper branch. The cenchings, known as the occupational cause of the instant injury, were not detected as the result of the assessment of exposure level in the air during the working environment measurement of the workplace, and the possibility of bench exposure in the deceased’s work process or in the workplace, is not confirmed. Therefore, proximate causal relation between the deceased’s death and the work is not recognized.”

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

Therefore, the plaintiff filed a request for reexamination to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Review Committee, but the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Review Committee decided to dismiss the request for reexamination on April 6, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 8, Eul evidence 1 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not perform the punching process only at the instant workplace, and punching process.