1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

On June 1, 1989, B(C) was employed as a faculty member of the D University and died on June 18, 2013. The Plaintiff is the deceased’s spouse. The Defendant is a public corporation established pursuant to the Pension for Private School Teachers and Staff Act with the aim of contributing to the economic stability of the faculty members and their bereaved family members and the improvement of their welfare by establishing a suitable benefit system for the retirement, death, and disability of the deceased’s spouse.

On November 14, 2012, 209:10 on November 14, 2012, the deceased was unable to receive a health examination, and was used in the course of preparing a literature-related report at the Suwon Hospital of the Gyeonggi-do.

As a result of the examination and treatment of the above hospital, the deceased was found to have signs of brain flasing, and transferred to the Aju University Hospital on the same day, but judged brain flasing.

In A State University Hospital, the consciousness of an emergency injection of the removal from blood exclusively was improved at around 23:00 on the date of hospitalization, but it was determined that the person was unable to provide active treatment because the person was unable to recover consciousness due to a somewhat low probability of recovering consciousness, and the deceased was transferred to the Rehabilitation Care Hospital on November 28, 2012.

(hereinafter the above series of processes were “the instant accident.” At the time of the electric power transfer, the deceased’s name was “the cerebral typhism by the chrone of cerebral chrone, the closure and compromise of the cerebral cerebral cerebral chrone, and the cerebral chronymosis.”

Since then, the deceased died on June 18, 2013 in the above convalescent Hospital.

The standard monthly income at the time of retirement due to the death of the deceased shall be 6,914,952 won.

[Reasons for Recognition] The Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul’s evidence Nos. 4 (including branch numbers), and the ground for claim as a whole of the pleadings is new after the Plaintiff transferred his/her work to the planning room on August 6, 2012.