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 November 22, 2004, the Plaintiff’s husband’s husband (CB, hereinafter “the deceased”) entered the original unit of the Dental Medical Center (computer), and worked for the E Hospital management on July 1, 2008.

B. On January 5, 2015, the Deceased was locked after his work at a later level than normal, and around 11:10 on January 10, 2015, the deceased sealed the gap of the mastp door glass that the Deceased driven by the FM parking lot next to the FMMM at Seogsan-si, Seogsan-si, in blue tape, sealed it into the blue tape. The deceased was found to have avoided the smoke on the back tin plate with a smoke straw and then died after the driver’s seat, and the deceased’s private person is presumed to have committed suicide due to the gas poisoning.

C. The Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses due to the deceased’s death. On February 4, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition against the Plaintiff on the ground of the Seoul Occupational Disease Determination Committee’s decision that “It is difficult to recognize the business relationship due to the death of the deceased’s suicide as it is difficult to recognize that the deceased’s suicide was affected by his/her own character characteristics and thus, it is difficult to pay survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the basis of the result of the determination by the Seoul Occupational Disease Determination Committee.

Although the Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination, the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee dismissed it on June 3, 2016.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul No. 3 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion on January 2, 2014, the number of clerical staff in the E Hospital Management division was adjusted from three to two, and the Plaintiff’s assertion was conducted in an excessive amount of work since that time. Around that time, there was a conflict between the workplace company and the workplace, and death.