1. On July 22, 2014, the Defendant’s disposition of bereaved family benefits and funeral expense against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

2...

Details of the disposition

The deceased B (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") is a person employed in C Center on May 6, 2009 and has worked as the head of the division.

On February 10, 2012, the Deceased complained of the chest's pain around the first instance trial on February 10, 2012, but did not leave the hospital but did not leave around 18:20.

After his retirement, the Deceased dumped on the house.

The group of the Dong Chang-gu participated in the group, and the group of the 19:50s, among the group of the Do, complained of the chest's card and lost consciousness.

Accordingly, the deceased was sent back to the "D Hospital" near the 119 first-aid vehicle, but died in an acute alarm around 21:12.

The Plaintiff asserted that, as his wife of the Deceased, the deceased died due to occupational malpractice and stress, and claimed for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses. However, on May 22, 2012, the Defendant issued a survivors’ benefits and funeral funeral site-based disposition to the Plaintiff on May 22, 2012, and the Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination against the Industrial Accident Compensation Review Committee against the said disposition on July 13, 2012.

On November 1, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the above disposition with the Seoul Administrative Court 2012Guhap36422, but was pronounced dismissed on April 26, 2013.

Accordingly, on July 4, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses, but the Defendant again filed a claim against the said Plaintiff for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition and the overall purport of the argument by the Plaintiff, including facts without dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 8, 26, and 27, and the entire purport of the pleading, was seriously affected by serious mental stress from October 201, and resulting in mental stress.

Nevertheless, the Defendant issued the instant disposition on the ground that there is no objective confirmation of the details of excess work of the deceased, and thus there is no proximate causal relation between the deceased’s work and the death.