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 March 1, 1992, the Plaintiff’s husband B (hereinafter “the deceased”) was a person who joined and worked for the Korea Land and Land Information Corporation (Korea Land and Land Information Corporation, June 15, 2015; hereinafter “instant company”).

B. On January 23, 2016, at around 07:00, the Deceased responded to, and concealed the chest, and the Plaintiff saw the hospital, left the apartment elevator after cutting the clothes first, and was boarding the elevator at around 07:20, when the Plaintiff was getting on the elevator, the Deceased was already used in a state without consciousness and was making a hidden.

Accordingly, the deceased transferred to C Hospital, but died at around 09:23 of the same day, and the direct deathist on the deceased’s death report is indicated as an unfounded stop.

C. The Plaintiff asserted that there exists a proximate causal relation between the deceased’s death and his work, and claimed the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses to the Defendant. However, on September 26, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses on the ground that there is no burden factor (such as rapid change of work environment, sudden increase in work volume, overwork volume, and excessive stress) to the extent that the deceased’s death is likely to cause the cause of the death before the outbreak through deliberation by the Occupational Disease Determination Committee on Determination of Occupational Diseases and thus, it is difficult to view that the deceased’s death was excessive to the extent of the occurrence of

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

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 February 9, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2 and 6 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is likely to pose a risk to the death of the forest area in the course of performing his/her duties.