1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The deceased B (hereinafter “the deceased”) is a public official working in the residents’ welfare and integrated investigation division of Busan D, and the plaintiff is the deceased’s spouse.

B. On December 21, 2016, from around 18:30 to 20:00 on December 21, 2016 to around 20:00, the Plaintiff returned home with a staff member of the Integrated Investigation Division, who was in the middle of Busan D, with a staff member of the Integrated Investigation Division. On the same day, the Plaintiff was found to have been in the state of Gutotop and blue luc

The Deceased was escorted to E Hospital near the 119 first-aid lane, but was judged as a death.

According to the body autopsy report of the deceased, the direct death of the deceased is “presumptive funeral service”.

C. The Plaintiff, the deceased’s spouse, alleged that “the deceased died due to an excessive performance of official duties,” and submitted a written claim for the compensation of bereaved family members of the deceased who died on duty to the head of the relevant pension handling agency.

On May 16, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition on the compensation for survivors of a site for public officials who died on duty according to the public official pension benefit deliberation opinion stating that “The Defendant, who is a direct death of the deceased, is known as the cause of a disease with structural problems, and there is no clear ground that the death of the deceased is rapidly aggravated due to overwork or stress, or that the death of the deceased is more rapidly aggravated than natural progress,” and that even according to the details of overtime work between six months before the death of the deceased, it is difficult to deem the deceased to have performed an excessive work beyond ordinary degree, even if it was based on the details of overtime work between six months before the death of the deceased.”

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was performed as a social welfare official with excessive duties compared to average public officials, and in particular, taking charge of civil petition affairs.