1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 4, 2016, the Plaintiff’s husband B (hereinafter “the deceased”) is a person employed by the Pyeongtaek-si Residents’ Self-Governing Center as a fixed-term worker and performed the duty of regulating illegal dumping of waste.

B. Around 17:00 on February 6, 2017, the Deceased was parked in D’s vehicle that was parked in a site visit truck for an illegal dumping of waste, resulting in a contact accident, and lost his/her own consciousness in the process of carrying out activities on D and insurance treatment, and was transferred through the 119 emergency squad to E Hospital, but died on the same day at around 18:17 on the same day.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disaster”). C.

On February 13, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that the death of the deceased constitutes an occupational accident and claimed the payment of bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses to the Defendant. However, the Defendant rendered a disposition on April 25, 2017 against the Plaintiff on the ground that “The causes of death of the deceased on February 6, 2017 are not verified as to the degree of causing the death of the deceased (e.g., a sudden change of work environment, sudden increase in work volume, overwork volume, and excessive stress). It is difficult to deem that the hours before the outbreak are excessive to the degree of death. The causes of death of the deceased on February 6, 2017 are not clearly confirmed and it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relationship with the work of the applicant branch because it is judged as a private person,” according to the deliberation by the Committee for Determination of Minor Occupational Diseases.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

On July 7, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination of the instant disposition with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, but the said Committee rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s request for reexamination on August 25, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 8 through 13, 16, 19 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion on December 22, 2016.