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 deceased B (CB, hereinafter “the deceased”) is a person who worked as a member of the office belonging to the Gangwon-gu Regional Administration, and the plaintiff is the deceased’s spouse.

B. Around April 2012, the Deceased was diagnosed with bad faith (workplace cancer) at work. From July 28, 2012 to July 27, 2013, the Deceased temporarily laid off from office and was under navigation cancer treatment, but was discharged from office on December 9, 2013 without completely recovering, and was eventually killed due to workplace cancer on March 19, 2015.

C. The Plaintiff, the deceased’s spouse, alleged that “the deceased caused the death of a worker due to an excess in the line of duty,” and submitted a written claim for the compensation of bereaved family members of the deceased on duty to the head of the relevant pension handling agency.

On March 5, 2018, the Defendant: (a) did not clearly know the cause of the development of the workplace cancer, which is the cause of the deceased’s death, as in other cancer; (b) however, the Defendant was issued a disposition on the land for compensation of survivors of public officials who died on duty on the ground that “A reasonable causal relation between the deceased’s official duties and the death cannot be acknowledged according to the review opinion of the Public Official Pension Benefit Council,” on the ground that it merely knows the causes of eating habits and environmental factors, climatic diseases, genetic factors, personality factors, etc., which take a large number of animal local areas and meat and take in less than textile food; and (c) there is no ground that the workplace cancer is caused by occupational excess or stress, or that the workplace cancer is rapidly aggravated due to natural progress or more.”

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 2, the fact inquiry results against the head of E post office, the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was subject to considerable stress due to frequent change of work place, and the area under the jurisdiction of each work place is broad and the Plaintiff’s heavy work is subject to examination of topographical map for a long time.