1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

On December 17, 2007, the details and details of the disposition C (the father of the plaintiff) suffered from the post-mathal cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral Ma, and received the grade No. 2 class No. 5 on December 4, 2014, and changed the grade No. 3 of disability No. 3.

(hereinafter “instant approved injury and disease”). C, around November 26, 2015, was found to have been used at home and sent to the D hospital (hereinafter “instant disaster”). At around 12:30 on November 26, 2015, it was sent back to the D hospital.

D A doctor in charge of the D Hospital performed a surgery on the “outer-to-out surgery” to C, but C was unable to recover, and C died of the “outer-to-out surgery,” a direct death on February 8, 2016, the direct death of which was the “outer-to-out surgery,” and the “outer-to-out surgery (outer-out surgery).”

(hereinafter “B” (hereinafter “the deceased”). The Plaintiffs claimed for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses to the Defendant, but the Defendant rendered a decision on site pay on April 8, 2016 on the ground that there was no causal link with the “the instant approved injury and disease” on the ground that the deceased’s personal injury and flachie transfusion did not exist.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”). [The grounds for recognition] did not dispute, the entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, and the purport of the entire arguments, the gist of the plaintiffs’ assertion was that the deceased suffered difficulties in walking due to the “the instant approved injury and disease,” and the symptoms of the Malisung donation, which led to the occurrence of an external depression, due to the death of the deceased, while walking in her home or walking in her home.

In addition, as the disability grade of "the injury and disease of this case" was lowered to class 5 to class 3 of class 2, the deceased was unable to receive urgent treatment after the death.

Therefore, there is a proximate causal relation between “the injury or disease of this case” and the death of the deceased.

Nevertheless, the instant disposition that was otherwise determined is unlawful.

Judgment

It is as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

Recognition of proximate causal relation between the deceased’s work and death.