1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The reasons why the court should explain the above part of the disposition are the same as the written judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall accept it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the death of the deceased is an occupational accident, as the plaintiff's son B was driving his own vehicle and died of an accident that caused the gift gift to the customers of a limited liability company C.

B. Determination 1) According to Gap evidence Nos. 4, Eul evidence Nos. 5, and 6, the accident road is a one-lane road below the coastwise motorways located at the sloping of Gunsan-si, and both of the roads have been installed continuously side, drainage and concrete retaining walls. The accident vehicle is found to have stopped across drainage and road under a concrete retaining wall. On the top side of the accident vehicle, there was a slick for the escape of the retaining wall. On the other hand, the vehicle was not slick with external obstacles. On the other hand, the front side of the vehicle was not slick for 23 meters of the accident vehicle. According to the above recognition fact, since the vehicle was 23 meters in the concrete retaining wall, the body of the deceased left the road due to his/her normal view of the accident at the point of the accident, and it should be proved that the accident occurred between the worker's death and the retaining wall and the worker's injury during his/her duty-related work.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Du4740, May 2, 1998; 2006Du8204, Jan. 31, 2008). In this case, whether there exists a proximate causal relationship between the deceased’s work and the death.