1. The disposition that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on May 18, 2015 as bereaved family benefits and funeral site pay shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

(a) B was employed on July 7, 2003 in C and served as a person engaged in textile and textile-related skills.

B With the approval of the Defendant as an industrial accident on February 21, 2004 with respect to “brain color (fluore fluoral and cognitive function disorder)” which occurred on February 21, 2004, received medical care benefits, etc. until June 30, 2008, and received disability pension from the Defendant after being determined as class 2 subparagraph 5 of the disability grade on July 1, 2008.

B. After the completion of the medical care, B was treated as a pain, such as taking medicines, etc. for anti-cerebrovascular system and drugs, etc. for high blood pressure control.

B On February 25, 2015, the outbreak of cerebrovascular and transferred to a hospital and received preservation treatment, and died on March 3, 2015.

C. On April 14, 2015, the Plaintiff, the spouse of the deceased B (hereinafter “the deceased”), filed a claim against the Defendant for the payment of bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses. However, on May 18, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the determination of the amount of bereaved family benefits and funeral funeral expenses on the ground that “In full view of the medical records, examination records, and medical advice prior to the deceased’s death, the deceased’s death was confirmed to have died of cerebral cerebralcular as “cerebral cerebrovascular due to cerebralcular” during the process observation after the occurrence of the “cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebr,” during the process observation on February 25, 2015, and thus, there is no proximate causal relationship between the cause of death of the deceased and the “cerebral cerebral cerebrs”

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of Refusal of this case"). . [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap's 1 through 4, Eul's 3 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the rejection disposition of this case is legitimate

A. The proximate causal relationship between the duties to recognize occupational accidents under Article 5 subparag. 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and the accidents is not necessarily required to be proved in medical or natural science, but it is proved that there is a proximate causal relationship between the duties and the accidents, considering all the circumstances.