1. On June 23, 2016, the Defendant’s disposition of bereaved family benefits and funeral expense against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The net B (Cre; hereinafter referred to as “the network”) is a company that supplies products, such as books, cards, and automatic text, to the construction site, the head of the headquarters and director of the company D (hereinafter referred to as “instant company”) that supplied them to the construction site.

B. On November 4, 2015, the Deceased, 19:40, after getting off an apartment elevator, was used in front of the house, and was sent back to the hospital by the 119 rescue unit. The Deceased was diagnosed as “patch-to-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat-pat

C. On March 25, 2016, the Plaintiff, the wife of the Deceased, claimed for the payment of bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses to the Defendant on the ground that the deceased’s death constituted an occupational accident. However, on June 23, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition of bereaved family benefits and funeral funeral expenses (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff according to the deliberation by the Occupational Disease Determination Committee, that “It is difficult to acknowledge a proximate causal relation between the work branch of the instant case as it does not meet the standards for recognition of short-term and chronic tasks, in consideration of the time and amount of work, etc. of the deceased’s death.”

The Plaintiff, dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a request for reexamination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, but was dismissed on October 7, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Eul evidence 1 and 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff had serious physical skin and stress due to long-time work and overtime, and had serious stress due to masts with superior, customer accounts, and promoted projects, etc., and there was a symptoms of cerebral blood transfer since before the date of the instant injury.