1. On October 25, 2013, the Defendant’s disposition of double-use negligence against the Plaintiff’s compensation for survivors shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 1, 1989, the Plaintiff’s husband B (C students, hereinafter “the deceased”) was appointed as fire-fighting officials from Jeonnam-do on January 1, 1989, and the Plaintiff’s husband was on duty as 119 Safety Center D from September 15, 2010.

B. Around 13:00 on August 7, 2013, the deceased was on a holiday, but due to a vacancy in the number of people due to another team’s summer leave, and went back to the office and was used in the office while performing duties, and was transferred to the Joseon National University Hospital through the Hannam General Hospital and received treatment. On August 22, 2013, the deceased died to “direct death: brain pressure, thalute, first class, and first class, and thalute: typhical typhrosis, and thalphical blood transfusion.”

C. On October 10, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that the outbreak and death of the deceased’s cerebral transfusions occurred due to overwork and stress arising from official duties, and demanded the Defendant to pay bereaved family’s compensation. On October 25, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of a decision to reduce 1/2 of the bereaved family’s compensation in accordance with Article 62(3)1 of the Public Officials Pension Act and Article 53 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Officials Pension Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”). In light of the fact that the major cause of cerebral transfusion, which is the cause of the death of the deceased, was a blood pressure, was presumed to have affected the deceased’s disease due to his official duties. However, it is presumed that the deceased’s blood pressure was not treated even though he was aware of the high blood pressure of the deceased, and thus, it can be deemed to have affected the deceased’s disease (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

Although the Plaintiff filed an objection to the instant disposition, the Public Official Pension Benefit Review Committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on March 12, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful