1. The Defendant’s disposition of compensation for survivors of public officials who died on duty on June 26, 2017 is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff’s wife (hereinafter “the deceased”) was appointed as a public official belonging to the Chungcheong Regional Administration on August 17, 1993. On August 20, 2015, the Plaintiff’s wife was issued as a post office of Chungcheong Regional Administration C (hereinafter “instant post office”) and was in charge of financial counter services, etc.

B. On March 28, 2017, the Deceased committed suicide by putting trees at home around 22:30.

C. The Plaintiff asserted that the deceased’s death in the line of duty constitutes a case where the deceased died while on duty, and filed a claim for compensation for bereaved family members of the deceased on duty. However, on June 26, 2017, the Defendant: (a) based on the following facts: “In light of the circumstance of the death of the deceased while on duty, D Hospital’s mental health records book, and E Counseling Center’s consultation, the suicide case constitutes an accident by intentional or private acts unrelated to the performance of official duties, and thus, constitutes an accident by intention or private acts; and (b) rather than the death or the existing disease significantly aggravated, it is deemed that the deceased was caused by extra-public factors such as occupational stress, or it is difficult to deem that the deceased died in the line of duty due to extreme mental disorder or mental disorder of the deceased; (c) therefore, the deceased’s death by intentional act or private act unrelated to official duties, and thus, it is difficult to deem that there was a considerable causal relation with public stress or public duty duty (hereinafter “the site for death”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, 3 through 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was diagnosed with occupational burden and stress in 201, and the Plaintiff did not recruit human resources despite shortage of human resources.