1. The plaintiff B's lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff A's claim is dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 5, 2012, while serving as the Defendant’s employee, Plaintiff A lost consciousness around 14:30 on November 14, 2012, and was diagnosed as “cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral Spa,” and accordingly, Plaintiff A caused symptoms, such as the flady feb and fla

B. On December 14, 2012, Plaintiff A filed an application for medical care with the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service, asserting that the foregoing accident occurred as a result of the occupational accident, but the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service rendered a disposition not to grant medical care on February 8, 2013 on the ground that “as a result of review of Plaintiff A’s duty, work period, medical record, doctor’s opinion, advisory opinion, etc., it is confirmed that Plaintiff A performed ordinary duties in a state of short-term, long-term, and chronic fault to the extent that it may have a significant impact on a sudden sudden situation or cerebrovascular, and that there is no proximate causal relation between duties and injury and injury.”

C. Although Plaintiff A filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the above disposition, it was affirmed upon the dismissal judgment (Supreme Court Decision 2013Guhap201143 Decided December 24, 2014, Gwangju High Court Decision 2015Nu115 Decided June 22, 2015), and each of the above rulings rendered a judgment that it is difficult to view that Plaintiff A’s duties were excessive.

On the other hand, on November 19, 2012, Plaintiff B, as the wife of Plaintiff A, prepared a letter to the effect that “The Defendant cooperates in receiving accident compensation under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act of Plaintiff A in relation to the accident referred to in the above paragraph (a), but the Plaintiffs are not liable for any civil or criminal liability to the Defendant.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, 2, Gap evidence 4-7, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion that the plaintiff A was used as cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral dys were mainly caused by accumulated stress and accumulated stress, and the defendant is an employee.