1. The disposition that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on October 16, 2014 as bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 1, 2013, the network B (hereinafter “the network”) (hereinafter “the network”) had been engaged in the business of assembling the body of a vehicle that started to be developed by entering the Matop Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Matop”) (hereinafter “Matop”).

B. Around 07:00 on June 9, 2014, the Deceased called that he was unable to work in the company of the non-party because his body was not good, and thereafter, he went back to the house at around 12:00 after being given a prescription for injection and medication at the nearby hospital and went back to the house at around 12:00.

The Deceased was used between 16:30 and 17:30, and around 17:30, the Plaintiff, a spouse of the Deceased, discovered the Deceased and sent to C Hospital, but died (hereinafter “the instant disaster”).

C. The direct cause of death of the deceased on the corpse autopsy report is presumed to be a acute heart funeral, and the cause of acute heart funeral is a cardio-cerebrovascular disease (presumed).

On August 29, 2014, the Plaintiff claimed the bereaved family’s benefits and funeral expenses to the Defendant. However, on October 16, 2014, the Defendant rendered a decision on the bereaved family’s benefits and funeral site expenses (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that proximate causal relation between the deceased’s work and the death is not recognized.

E. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the request for reexamination to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, but the said Committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for reexamination on February 12, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 7, Eul evidence 1 through 4 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that he/she joined the Nonparty Company on March 1, 2013, and until February 2014, the Plaintiff had been in charge of assembling the body (DOR) mainly worked by the immediately preceding department using a string machine fixed in the ceiling.

The work performed by the deceased is carried out in a way that it takes place in the immediately preceding process and transfers it to the next process.