1. The plaintiff B's lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff A and C's claims are all dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Nonparty D (EE; hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) served as the head of the police station in Gangnam-gu Police Station from February 12, 2014, and was found to have been on March 25, 2015 to March 26, 2015. Nonparty D (EE; hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”). From March 25, 2015 to March 26, 2015, Nonparty D worked as the head of the police station in Gangnam-gu Police Station, and was found to have died at the boarding room around 11:40 on March 26, 2015.

B. The plaintiff A is the deceased's spouse, and the plaintiff B (G) and C (H) are the children of the deceased.

C. On July 8, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision on the compensation for survivors’ compensation for the deceased on the ground that the deceased’s death appears to have occurred as soon as he/she was due to a complication after the congenital death, regardless of his/her official duties, due to the congenital death.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 8, Gap evidence 9-1, 2-1, and Gap evidence 14, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The details of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes are as shown in attached statutes;

3. According to the evidence No. 1-2 as to the legitimacy of Plaintiff B’s lawsuit, the written claim for bereaved family’s compensation, which served as the basis for the instant disposition, is only indicated Plaintiff A and C as a beneficiary, and Plaintiff B is not included in the scope of “bereaved family” under Article 3(1)3 and 3(2) of the former Public Officials Pension Act (amended by Act No. 13387, Jun. 22, 2015; hereinafter the same) as at the time of death of the deceased.

It is recognized that the plaintiff B did not contain any statement, and there is no legal interest in the plaintiff B against the rejection disposition of the above compensation claim for survivors.

Therefore, Plaintiff B’s lawsuit is unlawful.

4. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. While the Plaintiff A and C’s assertion was given medical treatment due to symptoms that gave rise to the chest in 2012, the symptoms revealed thereafter, and did not interfere with daily life, and did not neglect health care.

Rather, the deceased is acute due to frequent business trips and excessive work.