1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. B is a person who worked at the marina business place (hereinafter “instant business place”) of “C” in the Namdong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter “C”).

The trade name on the business registration certificate of this case is "D", and the business operator is E.

(b) B shall work as an employee at a business establishment with a mutually incompetence around 2016 and shall continue to maintain internal relations by becoming aware of F;

On November 2016, the Hague around 2016.

B called F around June 2017, the business of this case was opened by phone call to F, and thereafter contact with each other and maintained internal relations.

C. F, upon contact with B on February 2, 2018, visited the instant business establishment at around 01:50, and tried to find it at the instant business establishment. From around 02:25, F divided B with B at one page of the instant business establishment from around 02:25, and murdered B at around 03:20.

(hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”).

D. On October 1, 2018, the Defendant, as the Plaintiff’s father, was the joint business owner of the instant business, and was not a worker, and made a disposition of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the deceased’s death was not an accident in the course of performing his/her duties.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in attached Form 1;

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was the worker in charge of the field operation under the supervision and supervision of E, the business owner of the instant business establishment.

As the Deceased was killed during night duty on February 2, 2018, the Deceased’s death constitutes an accident during work.

B. 1) According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 6 and Eul evidence Nos. 4 and the entire arguments, the following facts are recognized. According to this, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff is a worker of the instant establishment solely on the fact that the business registration and the name of the lessee of the instant establishment was each E.).