1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

On June 24, 2013, the deceased B (hereinafter referred to as the "the deceased") was employed by Kimpo-il on June 24, 2013, and served as a living environment supervisor in Kimpo-View and the preservation of the living environment.

On July 6, 2013, the deceased participated in the met-gu game from 08:30 to 08:50, and was used in around 08:50.

The deceased was sent by the 119 emergency squad, who was sent to the hospital, but died before the hospital arrives at the hospital.

As a result of the autopsy on the deceased, the deceased was judged to have died of a serious fluorial fluence.

On September 3, 2013, the Plaintiff, as the mother of the deceased, claimed the payment of bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses against the Defendant’s father’s branch office, who died due to occupational stress, etc., but on October 10, 2013, the Defendant’s father branch made a disposition of bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that there is no proximate causal relation between the deceased’s work and the death.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff sought revocation of the instant disposition against the Defendant (the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act”)

(See Article 103) The defendant dismissed the plaintiff's request for examination on January 8, 2014, and the above written decision was served on the plaintiff on the 13th of the same month.

[Ground of recognition] The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case as a whole, such as facts without dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, Gap’s evidence Nos. 2-2, Gap’s evidence Nos. 3 and 8, and the purport of the entire pleading, and the Plaintiff’s assertion as to whether the disposition of this case is legitimate, was killed in a serious fluence while attending the ar

The deceased shall be deemed to have died due to an occupational accident as prescribed by Article 37(1)1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Act. The defendant, without deciding on this, whether the deceased died of an occupational disease as prescribed by Article 37(1)2 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Act.