1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On January 1, 1986, the deceased B (hereinafter referred to as the “the deceased”) was employed by the corporation C on January 1, 1986, and from March 201, the company had been employed as the general manager of “D” operated by the company from Jeju-do.

On November 16, 2011, the deceased driven his own car and went to the outside of the hotel. On the same day, around 14:59 on the same day, the deceased felled below the F in Seopo-si E and died.

According to the deceased's body autopsy report, the private person of the deceased is written as a chest damage.

On February 20, 2013, the Plaintiff, as a wife of the Deceased, sought bereaved Family Benefits and Funeral Expenses from the Defendant’s Jeju Branch on the ground that the Deceased died due to an accident during his/her duties, but the Defendant’s Jeju Branch died of an accident during his/her duties on April 5, 2013.

On the ground that the Plaintiff appears to have died during the private outing of the country, the Plaintiff made a request for the revocation of the instant disposition against the Defendant (hereinafter “instant disposition”). However, the Plaintiff claimed for the revocation of the instant disposition against the Defendant (hereinafter “Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act”)

(See Article 103) The Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for examination on October 2013.

The Plaintiff filed a petition for review seeking revocation of the instant disposition with respect to the Defendant’s Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee (see Article 106 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act). However, the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s petition for reexamination on March 7, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5 (including each number in the case of virtual numbers), Gap evidence Nos. 6-1, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings as to whether the disposition of this case is legitimate or not, the plaintiff's assertion that the disposition of this case is legitimate was taken out of the hotel after November 16, 201, which is the date of disaster, was not for private promise but for installing facilities around the hotel.

The deceased shall be installed in F in the course of opening up the surrounding facilities of the hotel.