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 November 3, 1999, the deceased B (hereinafter “the deceased”) was a worker belonging to the Korea Development Corporation, and was a sudden accident during the rest at the construction site of the New Construction Site of C University No. 6 (hereinafter “instant accident”).

B. By August 25, 2004, the Deceased received medical care benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act for “the upper right-hand side of the brain-resistant species, the brain-resistant side, and the third brain type (hereinafter “the instant approved injury”)” (hereinafter “the instant approved injury”). On October 17, 2004, the deceased was determined as class 7 No. 4 of the disability grade and received disability benefits.

C. Meanwhile, on January 27, 2004, the deceased was diagnosed as “cerebrovascular brain” and applied for additional injury and disease to the defendant. However, on February 17, 2004, the deceased was issued a disposition of non-approval for additional injury and disease by the defendant.

On January 10, 2017, the Deceased died at his own house on or around 23:00, and the person directly dies is brain fluorial.

E. On January 25, 2017, the Plaintiff, the wife of the Deceased, applied for the bereaved family’s benefits and funeral expenses to the Defendant. On April 10, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition on the bereaved family’s benefits and funeral funeral expenses on the ground that the death of the Deceased was based on influent brain color, and that there was no proximate causal relation between the approved branch of the instant case’s death and that

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case"). [Grounds for recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, 7, 10 through 12, 16 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the death of the deceased continued due to the instant approved injury and injury, resulting in rapid aggravation of brain color or natural progress speed.

In addition, the deceased eventually caused the death due to brain death, and the death of the deceased is deemed to have a proximate causal relation with the accident of this case, so the disposition of this case is unlawful.

(b) fact of recognition 1.