1. The disposition of compensation for survivors’ compensation rendered by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on February 1, 2016 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 21, 199, the deceased’s spouse B (hereinafter “the deceased”) was appointed as a junior administrative officer on October 21, 199, and served as the court administrative officer of Chuncheon District Court D, etc. on July 1, 2007, and was promoted to the court administrative officer on July 1, 2007. From January 1, 2013, the deceased’s spouse as F (hereinafter “F”).

B. On September 29, 2015, the Deceased would go through G around 11:18 at the National Court Administration Fee and Gwangju City.

As a result, it was sent to a nearby hospital, but died at around 12:19 on the same day.

C. The officer of the law who conducted the autopsy on the deceased expressed his medical opinion that the private person of the deceased is considered to be a acute fluorial condition.

Although the Plaintiff filed a claim for the payment of bereaved family’s compensation to the Defendant, on February 1, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision on the compensation for bereaved family’s compensation money on the ground that “Abstinence, which is a private person of the deceased, appears to have caused severe injury to the heart due to mountain, due to mountain, etc. during which the deceased’s status of service was maintained for a considerable period of time. There is no evidence to verify the deceased’s status of service. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that the deceased had suffered excessive causal relation between the deceased’s official duties and the deceased’s death.”

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, entry in Gap’s Evidence Nos. 1, 3, 10, 11, and Eul’s Evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 is that the deceased was born to F on January 1, 2013, and thereafter, he/she had been suffering from occupational pressure and stress. As such, given that the symptoms of high blood pressure have deteriorated, resulting in the death in acute heart color, there is a proximate causal relation between the deceased’s official duties and the deceased’s death. Therefore, the instant disposition based on a different premise is unlawful. 2) The Defendant’s assertion on this different premise is consistent with a high blood pressure treatment system to be used for life even after receiving a diagnosis of high blood pressure.