1. The Defendant’s disposition of compensation for survivors of public officials who died on duty is revoked on September 18, 2018.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

Details of the disposition

B (C) On June 16, 1995, he was appointed as a local administrative secretary, and from October 7, 2016, he served as a local administrative assistant.

B, around 22:50 on May 4, 2018, among the persons divingd at home, showed the appearance that he was hiding, gympted, salvated, flowed, and salvating, and caused light. Around 0:07 on May 5, 2018, a family member was sent to a hospital of Jeonbuk University by the 119 first aid unit, and died in the first-aid vehicle.

The autopsy was not implemented, and the body autopsy, which was written as a direct death, was issued.

The plaintiff is the spouse of B (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”).

On September 18, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition on the compensation for bereaved families of public officials who died on duty on the ground that “In light of the circumstance, etc. that the deceased was the deceased’s direct death on the corpse of the corpse of the corpse of the corpse and had been treated by blood pressure from around 2013, the deceased appears to have died on the combined action of an individual’s vulnerability, physical handicap, or physical disease, and thus, it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relationship with the public duty.”

(hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"). . [Grounds for recognition] without dispute; Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply); each statement of evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4; and the whole purport of the pleading are as shown in the attached Form of

The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition had experienced considerable overwork and stress as an excessive work.

In this end, stress caused the death of the deceased by causing a high blood pressure of the deceased or aggravation of stress beyond the natural progress.

Death of the deceased constitutes an occupational accident.

Judgment

First of all, I examine the deceased's overwork and stress.

The aforementioned evidence, evidence Nos. 3, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 5 through 9, 13, 15, and 16, the witness F testimony, and the fact-finding inquiry inquiry into Eth, the result of the entrustment of the medical record appraisal to G Hospital, and the arguments.