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 June 7, 2013, around 20:00, the Plaintiff’s husband B was used at the construction site for the new construction of a factory located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seocheon-gu (hereinafter “Yananananan-gu site”) to work as an unofficial.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). B was transferred to a hospital on the same day, and received surgery and treatment, but died of cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral Spathy and cerebral cerebral cerebr

(B) On June 24, 2013, the Plaintiff came to hold a funeral ceremony for the Deceased.

B. The Plaintiff claimed bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses from the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act to the Defendant.

On October 28, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that “The cause of the death of the deceased is not recognized as a proximate causal relationship with the work of the deceased, since the existing disease (such as blood pressure, etc. which has not been medically confirmed) which is naturally aggravated,” the Defendant rendered a decision on site pay as to the Plaintiff’s claim for survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses (hereinafter “instant site pay disposition”) according to the result of deliberation by the Committee for Determination of Occupational Diseases.

C. As to the disposition of the instant site price, the Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination with the Ministry of Employment and Labor to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee (hereinafter “Reexamination Committee”).

On April 3, 2014, the Reexamination Committee rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s request for reexamination on the ground that “the deceased’s death is not of sufficient objective grounds or medical opinion to recognize a proximate causal relation with his/her duties, and thus cannot be seen as an occupational accident.”

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 7, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition of the site pay in this case is lawful

A. A. Around June 7, 2013, when the Plaintiff’s assertion occurred, the time was the high temperature.

The Deceased worked for a total of 61 hours per week prior to the occurrence of the instant accident, which is four weeks prior to that.