1. The disposition that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on June 16, 2017 as bereaved family benefits and funeral site wages shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 1, 2014, the Plaintiff’s husband (hereinafter “the deceased”) entered the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D Co., Ltd.”) (hereinafter “instant company”) and carried out the safety inspection of civil engineering structures.

B. On May 15, 2016, the Deceased was found to have committed suicide by putting the gas pipes out on Sundays 11:30.

C. The Plaintiff asserted that the deceased’s death constitutes an occupational accident, and filed a claim for the payment of bereaved family’s benefits and funeral expenses. However, on June 16, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-sale of the bereaved family’s benefits and funeral’s site in accordance with the results of deliberation by the Seoul Committee for Determination of the Seoul Disease that “it is difficult to recognize a causal relationship between the deceased’s death and occupational stress, although there exist minority opinions related to the deceased’s death and occupational stress, as a result of examining the record of medical records and the materials submitted, it appears that the deceased’s duties as a civil structure safety diagnosis expert appears to be a continuous line of duty in light of his occupational ability, etc., even if the duties of the deceased are considered as having been transferred, the occupational stress factor is not clear as it is not possible to find any change in the contents of duties, and thus, it is difficult to recognize a causal relationship with the deceased’s death as a result of the result of the review by

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

On July 25, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination of the instant disposition with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, but the said Committee rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s request for reexamination on September 21, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 19, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 5, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was carried out two times or more projects compared to other teams, and work for employees.