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 August 24, 2011, the deceased B (Cre; hereinafter “the deceased”) fell at a height of 4.5 meters during the 4.5 meters in the middle of the construction work outside the building at the site of housing renovation and repair construction works.

The Deceased suffered diversity damage from spine department due to the foregoing disaster, and was hospitalized in a set-off hospital affiliated with the Human University (hereinafter referred to as “sub-off white hospital”).

B. On January 4, 2013, the Deceased filed an application with the Defendant for extension of the period of medical care by attaching a medical treatment plan as of January 1, 2013 to February 28, 2013, and received the approval decision from the Defendant on January 9, 2013.

C. However, on January 6, 2013, the Deceased died on January 8, 2013, which was sent back to a set-off white hospital due to the difficulty of the Apact respiratory from the surface of the water at his own home.

A private person of the deceased is a "pathosome, a direct death, and a water surface dynasty, an intermediate vessel," in the death certificate.

On January 16, 2013, the Plaintiff, the deceased’s wife, claimed the Defendant for the payment of unpaid insurance benefits (compensation benefits). On February 14, 2013, the Defendant rendered a decision that the Plaintiff would not be paid disability benefits on the ground that “the deceased’s condition of continuous treatment at the time of his death is not subject to disability benefits” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1, 2, 3 evidence, and Eul 10

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) did not receive disability benefits before the deceased’s death, but the doctor of the deceased issued a written disability diagnosis to the effect that “the deceased had already been dead before the deceased’s death,” and the Defendant also notified the deceased of the completion of medical care twice during the period of the deceased’s medical care. Meanwhile, the Defendant’s advisory opinion is difficult to believe the content of the deliberation as it is as it is, as it is, as it is a member without any description in a mental, mental, or medical or professional medicine irrelevant to the symptoms of the deceased. 2) As such, the deceased had already been dead before the death, and thus, the symptoms were “hure”.