1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 17, 2010, the deceased B (hereinafter “the deceased”) who is the Plaintiff’s spouse was employed as a production engineer in the international chemical industry, Inc., a plastic product manufacturing company, and was placed in the work site (hereinafter “instant business site”) around 19:30 on June 25, 2012, and was sent back to the Asia University Hospital via D Hospital.

In A State University Hospital, the Deceased was diagnosed as “the heart suspension successful in artificial insemination, the detailed closure of missing persons, and the injury to infertility, which is not otherwise classified (hereinafter “the injury of this case”). On November 24, 2012, the Deceased died on the basis of a transfer to Evalescent Hospital and received treatment, and around 06:37.

B. On July 10, 2012, the Deceased applied for the first medical care benefit with respect to the instant injury and disease to the Defendant, but the Defendant rejected the said application on August 20, 2012.

C. On March 15, 2013, the bereaved family members of the deceased filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the Defendant’s non-approval disposition (hereinafter “instant prior lawsuit”) with the Seoul Administrative Court No. 2013Gudan6285, and withdrawn the said lawsuit on September 23, 2014.

On April 27, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses with the Defendant. However, on June 16, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition against the Plaintiff to exempt the survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the “brain dysia, bad quality, and anti-carbon brain damage,” which caused the death of the deceased, is not recognized as an occupational disease (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 3, 4, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that plastic products were continuously exposed to plastic vinyl at the instant place of business that manufactures plastic products, and the Plaintiff’s claim was made for four days’ night work consisting of 08:00 to 19:00 and 19:00 to 08:00.