1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The deceased B (hereinafter “the deceased”) is a person who served as a taxi engineer, and the brain color, which occurred on November 27, 1992, was recognized as an occupational accident and received the medical care decision from the Defendant.

B. By March 31, 2006, the deceased received the treatment of dementia due to the above brain fladism, the left-hand side flady, the fladal brain flady, the two parts damage, and received the disability pension after receiving the decision of class 2 subparagraph 5 of the disability grade (hereinafter referred to as the “instant approved injury disease”). C. Each of the injury and disease approved as an occupational accident as described in the above paragraphs (a) and (b) is approved.

From April 29, 2016, the Deceased died on June 15, 2019 while receiving hospitalized treatment in a Dvalescent Hospital.

The direct deathist in the deceased’s death diagnosis report is a pulmonary death certificate.

The Plaintiff, a spouse of the deceased, asserted that the death of the deceased constituted occupational accidents, and claimed the payment of bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses to the Defendant.

On September 18, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition of the bereaved family’s benefits and funeral expenses on the ground that “The result of the Defendant’s advisory opinion, etc. shows that there is a proximate causal relationship between brain fluoral fluoral and pulmonary fluoral fluoral fluorals, the cause of death of the deceased

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] . [This case’s disposition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In full view of the Plaintiff’s opinion on the preparation of the deceased’s master book, the death certificate, etc., it is reasonable to view that the deceased caused the death by the outbreak of pulmonary pulmonary gift, etc., which is the approved injury of this case.

Therefore, as a proximate causal relation is recognized between the death of the deceased and the approved branch of the instant case, the instant disposition should be revoked on a different premise.

(b)as shown in the attached text of the relevant statute;