1. The Defendant’s revocation of a disposition to pay survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses to the Plaintiff on August 31, 2012.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 15, 2011, the Plaintiff’s husband B (hereinafter “the deceased”) entered and worked in C (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) which is a primary wood producer, and died on May 21, 2012.

B. As a result of the autopsy conducted on May 21, 2012 by the National Scientific Investigative Research Institute on May 21, 2012, the deceased’s private person was judged to be a acute funeral due to a brudial heart disease (including the possibility of acute heart color).

C. On June 21, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that the deceased’s death constitutes an occupational accident, and filed a claim for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses. However, on August 31, 2012, the Defendant rendered a decision on the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral site-based site-based compensation on the ground of the determination by the Committee for Determination of the Minor Occupational Disease (including the possibility of acute serious emerculation) that “The fact that the work performed prior to the outbreak of the disease is not verified short-term or chronic occupational careers or stress to the extent that the applicant’s injury is likely to be caused, and that the applicant’s acute heart funeral (including the possibility of acute emerculation) is not related to his/her work.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

The Plaintiff sought revocation of the instant disposition, but the Defendant dismissed such request on January 16, 2013.

In this regard, the plaintiff filed a request for reexamination, but the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee dismissed the request on May 23, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was based on the Nonparty Company’s accommodation from the time of the accident to the time of the accident, and physical skin and stress were accumulated in heavy noise and dust from heavy work, and since three months prior to the occurrence of the accident, the working hours were considerably increased.

The Deceased suffers from high blood pressure and chronic diverosis disease.