1. On May 7, 2015, the Defendant’s disposition of bereaved family benefits and funeral site pay to the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. During the Plaintiff’s husband’s work at a milk medication, the deceased’s husband (hereinafter “the deceased”) was diagnosed by brain flachie (hereinafter “the first brain flachie”) on March 31, 2005 and receiving medical treatment until June 30, 2007 after obtaining approval for an occupational disease, such as bovine spongiformiformiform, etc., and around November 6, 2007, the deceased was determined to have been subject to the second grade 5 of the disability grade (a person who has an obvious obstacle to the function or mental function of the new system from time to time) (hereinafter “second brain flachie”). On July 9, 2011, the deceased was subject to the Defendant’s re-treatment on the right-hand brain (hereinafter “the second brain flachie”). On July 12, 2012, the deceased received the Defendant’s medical treatment on the ground of the above brain flachie, but received the disposition from the Defendant on February 7, 2012.

Accordingly, on May 28, 2013, the Deceased filed an administrative litigation (Seoul Administrative Court case No. 2013Gudan52059) on May 28, 2013 and died on February 5, 2015 and the said lawsuit was withdrawn on June 2015.

C. In relation to the death of the deceased, the direct death was brain fluor, the interim wire fluor, the body fluor, and the senior fluor. D.

On January 8, 2015, 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 with the Defendant. On May 7, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition of survivors’ benefits and funeral site-based compensation (hereinafter “the instant disposition”) on the ground that “The main contribution to the deceased’s death is a common opinion that the second brain color of the deceased occurred around July 201, rather than the first brain color (in comparison with the first path, the scope is wide, the upper brain color is accompanied) and that it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relationship with the first brain color and the death.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. There is a proximate causal relationship between the first brain color that approved the Plaintiff’s medical treatment and the deceased’s death.