1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 28, 2013, the Plaintiff’s child B (CB; hereinafter “the deceased”) entered a tax accounting corporation D (hereinafter “D”) and promoted to a major position around July 2014, and performed duties, such as a customer’s bookkeeping agent.

B. On December 24, 2015, the Deceased was a phone call from an employee of Enmark Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Enmark”), a customer company, who was performing his/her duties in D on December 16, 2015.

The Deceased, at around 16:06 on the same day from among the Do in which he/she had a high speech with the above staff and had a telephone call, transferred to the Hanyang University Hospital located in the vicinity, but died on the 28th day of the same month on the 16:30 day.

C. The death diagnosis report of the deceased is indicated as the “multi-high growth contribution before the death,” which is the direct death of the deceased, “low-carbon brain damage,” which is the middle-line event, and “de facto movement,” which is the preceding death.

On July 26, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the deceased died due to occupational stress, and claimed the Defendant to pay survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses. However, on the ground that there is no proximate causal relation between the deceased’s work and the death, the Defendant determined the survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for examination to the Defendant, but the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for examination on December 6, 2016.

Therefore, the Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, but the said Committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for reexamination on March 6, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was promoted to the principal around July 2014 by the deceased, and the duties of the deceased were considerably aggravated.

In addition, the Deceased belongs to Enmark on December 24, 2015.