1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s acceptance of the judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of first instance, except for adding the following judgments, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. On April 2005, the Plaintiff: (a) was used as brain fluoring (hereinafter “the instant disaster”); and (b) was judged by the Defendant as a disability class 3; and (c) subsequently, the health of the Defendant has deteriorated due to long-term excessive illness; and (d) was presumed to have died due to the removal of a representative brain fluorial merger witness, in particular, as well as the removal of foods due to the lack of smoking or smoke; and (e) asserted that there exists a proximate causal relation between the instant disaster and the death of the deceased.

B. For the recognition of death due to an occupational reason as stipulated in Article 5 subparagraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the death in question is caused by the occupational reason, and there is a proximate causal relation between the occupational and the accident. In this case, the causal relation between the employee’s work and the accident should be proved by the claimant. Thus, if the worker’s private life is unclear, it cannot be presumed to be caused by the

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Du8449 delivered on December 26, 2003, etc.). C.

Based on the above legal principles, there is no evidence to prove that the deceased was treated by the health team and the deceased’s treatment due to the removal of waste before the death, the body autopsy of the deceased merely stated the cause of the death as “the heart suspension in which the death is unknown,” and the cause of the death cannot be presumed to be favorable to his bereaved family without reasonable grounds. In this case, there is a considerable ground for presumption of the death of the deceased in favor of the plaintiff.