1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff’s husband’s husband B (hereinafter “the deceased”) is a person who entered the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant workplace”) around August 1992 and performed the duty of general management of gas stations around August 1992.

B. At around 07:10 on May 10, 201, the Deceased was found to be a dynamic body in a new condition at the second floor of the instant workplace, and was transferred to the Cheongnam-do Medical Center through the 119 Emergency Medical Center (hereinafter referred to as the “Selimic Medical Center”), and received treatment, such as oxygen injection and liquid treatment, etc. under the diagnosis of brain - and was transferred to the D hospital again. The Deceased was diagnosed as a cerebriform and cerebrovascular (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”). However, on September 1, 2011, the Deceased was diagnosed as a cerebriform, a direct death at the second floor, an intermediate preemptive event, and killed in the heart-dong, a prior death.

C. On July 5, 2011, the Deceased filed an application for medical care benefits for the instant injury and disease before death. However, on September 26, 2011, the Defendant rendered a decision to refuse medical care in accordance with the deliberation of the Daejeon Occupational Disease Determination Committee, stating that “It is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relation with the duties of the relevant injury and disease since there was no physical or mental stress that may be unique prior to the outbreak of the injury and injury, due to the aggravation of the king witness’s consent.”

On June 19, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that the death of the deceased constituted an occupational accident and claimed the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses to the Defendant. However, on June 21, 2012, the Defendant rendered a disposition of paying survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses on the same ground as the decision of granting the foregoing medical care payment.

On May 2, 2014, the Board of Audit and Inspection rendered a decision that "the defendant must make a proximate causal relationship between the work and the injury and disease by providing accurate data omitted from the advisory doctor and the Committee for Determination of Occupational Diseases" and the defendant.