1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The instant disposition B (a public official of the British Cancer Office; hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) was discovered on January 18, 2015 after being dead in the Giman toilet around 05:00.

On April 2015, the Plaintiff, a spouse of the deceased, filed a claim for bereaved family's compensation with the Defendant.

On June 7, 2015, the Defendant decided to pay bereaved family compensation for the Plaintiff on the ground that there is no proximate causal relation between the deceased’s death and his official duties.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, 10, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 4 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion has been in charge of excessive work since 2011 and has been subject to much stress on the development of electric village from around October 2014. As long as the course and stress in the above official duties were in combination with geological blood transfusions, so long as they were in an existing disease, there was a proximate causal relation between the deceased’s death and the official duties.

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. The judgment of the court below refers to a disaster caused by a disease or injury on official duty, which is a requirement for the payment of compensation for survivors under Article 61 (1) of the Public Officials Pension Act, refers to a disaster caused by official duty. Thus, there is a causal relationship between the public official and the disease, and the causal relationship should be proved by the assertion of such causal relationship. The method and degree of proof are not necessarily required to be proved by direct evidence in medical or natural science, and it is sufficient if it is proved to the extent that proximate causal relationship between the public official's disease and the disease can be inferred by indirect facts such as the health condition at the time of employment, existence of existing disease, nature of the work, and the working environment of the public official, and whether or not other public officials' same disease occurred at the same workplace.