1. On June 20, 2016, the Defendant’s disposition of bereaved family benefits and funeral expense against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 22, 1996, the Plaintiff’s spouse B (CB; hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s spouse”) entered and worked in D Co., Ltd., a multinational company that produces, maintains, and repairs semiconductor manufacturing equipment (hereinafter “instant company”).

On June 1, 2015, the Deceased took a business trip to attend the workshop held in Singapore. On June 2, 2015, around 22:00, the Deceased was found to have lost his mind in the dormitory bed, and was sent to the hospital, but died at around 23:10 on the same day.

B. The Plaintiff claimed bereaved family’s benefits and funeral expenses to the Defendant on the ground that the deceased’s death was based on acute heart infection caused by occupational malpractice and stress.

However, on June 20, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition of the bereaved family’s benefits and funeral site pay to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the deceased’s occupational course and stress cannot be confirmed, and it is unlikely that it may arise as a result of the work because the cause of the outbreak of acute acute infection is not clear.”

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The plaintiff appealed against this and filed a request for examination to the defendant, but was dismissed on December 14, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. By February 2010, the Plaintiff’s assertion was prosecuted on the suspicion that the Plaintiff had leaked the trade secrets of E around February 2010, while serving as a product group of DSS (a process by causing chemical action on the surface of wafers) against E in the instant company.

The Deceased was subject to extreme stress in criminal trials upon receiving the order of leave of absence from the instant company, which was aware of his/her customer intention, but was finally acquitted at the first instance court and the appellate court, and reinstated around March 2015.

However, the deceased is not in charge of the work prior to his leave of absence, and after his reinstatement, the deceased measure the PDC (wafer measuring equipment)/MPS against F, etc.