1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

The plaintiff is the spouse of the deceased B (the third male, hereinafter referred to as the "the deceased"), and the deceased is a person who was employed in the D Service around December 16, 1996 and worked as the director of the E Training Institute Construction Team in exclusive charge of the above E Training Institute Construction since January 1, 2017, and performed related consultation, construction order, construction work commencement and responsible supervision commencement, terms of contract, and management of payment.

On December 12, 2017, around 07:17, the Deceased was used in preparation for attendance at the Overcheon-si F Apartment G (hereinafter “the instant disaster”), and was transferred to an I Hospital located in H in the Gu, while inside, the Deceased died from the death of the deceased on December 17, 2017, as the “cerebrovascular”, a direct death on December 19:12.

On August 2018, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses, and medical care benefits for the Deceased. However, on November 19, 2018, the Defendant rejected the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses on the ground that there was no proximate causal relation between the deceased’s duty burden and the deceased’s duty was not acknowledged, on the ground that “the deceased’s ordinary working hours were not excessive, and the apprehensions about promotion caused by the deceased was limited to the degree that they could feel a normal working person, and that there was no proximate causal relation between the deceased’s duty and the duty that the deceased was in charge was rapidly increased before the disaster of this case.” The Defendant did not approve the deceased’s medical care benefits.

[Ground of absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 9, Gap evidence Nos. 11 through 13, Gap evidence Nos. 22, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 22, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings of the instant disposition is legitimate. The plaintiff asserted that the disposition of the instant case is legitimate, when working at the department exclusively in charge of the establishment of the E-Training Institute of the Korea Agency, has completed basic design and performed an excessive work for design and examination. In particular, as of December 5, 2017 immediately before the instant accident, the fire-fighting company, one of the joint beneficiaries of the E Training Institute, was under excessive stress in the process of seeking alternative measures after being subject to business suspension.