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 January 30, 1996, while working at the construction site for two industries, the Plaintiff’s husband (hereinafter “the deceased”) obtained medical treatment approval from the Defendant with respect to the injury and disease caused by “cerebral typhism, negoical or mental disorder” (hereinafter “instant approved injury and disease”), and until September 30, 2003, the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 20875, Jun. 25, 2008) after medical treatment at the Incheon Central Hospital of the Industrial Medical Center (hereinafter “Industrial Medical Center”) and then received judgment of class 25 [Attachment 2] under the physical disability grade table.

B. On October 23, 2006, the Deceased received the approval for re-treatment from the Industrial Accident Medical Center after receiving the approval for re-treatment. On February 5, 2007, Article 39(1) and [Attachment 4] of the Enforcement Decree of the above invalidity grade 2 (a person who is obliged to receive nursing from time to time due to a significant obstacle to the function or mental function of the new disorder) under the invalidity grade table.

C. On February 10, 2012, the Deceased died at the Seocheon University Hospital, and the death diagnosis report on the Deceased prepared by the doctor D of the above hospital is written by the deceased’s direct death due to multi-surmatic disorder, and the cause of multi-surmatic disorder is written by the Maumcheon University.

On March 15, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that the death of the deceased was due to the disease caused by the recognition of the instant case, and claimed for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses. However, on June 4, 2012, the Defendant on the ground that the Plaintiff’s direct death of the deceased was a multi-marry functional disorder, and that the pre-marr was the death of the deceased, and that there was no proximate causal relation between the death of the deceased and the recognition of the instant injury, and thus, the deceased’s death