The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff’s spouse B (C life, hereinafter “the Deceased”) entered D, a food delivery company, on April 11, 2018, and engaged in delivery services using Otoba.

사망의 원인 ㈏, ㈐, ㈑에는 ㈎ 와 직접 의학적 인과 관계가 명확한 것만을 적습니다

㈎ 직접 사인 뇌간마비 ㈏ ㈎ 의 원인 중증 뇌부종 ㈐ ㈏ 의 원인 경막하, 지주 막하 출혈 두개골 골절 ㈑ ㈐ 의 원인 - ㈎부터 ㈑까지와 관계없는 기타의 신체상황 -

B. On June 20, 2018, the Deceased, using the 13:09 Obabaon on June 20, 2018, changed the course from the six-lane to the four-lane, which is the straight line, on the road in Seoul, located in the direction of the Seoul, located in the vicinity of the 1st century, to the third-lane (hereinafter “instant accident”). The Deceased transferred the instant accident to the hospital on June 20, 2018, but died on June 22:18.

The causes of death in the deceased’s written diagnosis of death are as follows:

(c)

On August 30, 2018, the Plaintiff: (a) moved the deceased to the Defendant after completing delivery while performing delivery duties; and (b) caused the instant accident; (c) accordingly, the deceased’s death constitutes occupational accident; and (d) filed an application for the payment of the bereaved family’s benefits and funeral expenses.

On December 26, 2018, the Defendant rendered a decision on site pay (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff’s application on the ground that the instant accident occurred while the Deceased attempted to change course in a unreasonable manner, and thus, the act of violating the Road Traffic Act was caused by the deceased’s intentional act, which eventually led to death and does not constitute occupational accident.

(d)

The Plaintiff filed a request for examination against the instant disposition, but the Defendant, May 15, 2019, caused only a criminal act violating the Road Traffic Act of the Deceased.