1. The disposition that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on March 28, 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 December 4, 200, the deceased B (CB; hereinafter “the deceased”) entered D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant Company”).

The Deceased is a device that forms a circuit pattern (No. exposure) by applying light (UV) to the wafers, which are materials of semiconductors and semiconductors, which are materials of semiconductors in semiconductors and L CD factories.

From December 4, 200 to April 30, 2005, E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “E”), E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “F”), from May 1, 2005 to July 2005, from old American factories and from August 28, 2013, from August 2005 to June 28, 2013.

B. On June 15, 2012, the Deceased was diagnosed with primary lung cancer, accompanied by a right plehion at the National Health Insurance Hospital, because it is difficult for the Deceased to take part in the hospital due to pulmonal difficulty at the time of cryption, outpatient and physical exercise.

On June 18, 2012, the Deceased was transferred from July 2, 2012 to the National Cancer Center. However, on February 15, 2013, the Deceased was found to have been transferred to brain.

The Deceased was hospitalized in the National Cancer Center from February 20, 2013 to March 2, 2013, from March 15, 2013 to April 13, 2013, and died on June 28, 2013 while being hospitalized again on May 27, 2013 and being receiving preserved treatment.

C. On February 5, 2014, the Plaintiff, the deceased’s spouse, claimed that the deceased’s death constituted occupational accidents, and claimed the Defendant to pay bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses.

However, on March 28, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition of determining the amount of survivors’ benefits and funeral funeral expenses (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “The risk of exposure to the buriite radiation, which is a cancer substance, is low in terms of the content of the network’s business, and the exposure concentration was low even if the exposure was made, and the evidence that the exposure was exposed to other cancer substances that may cause the lung cancer is insufficient, making it difficult to recognize the relevance of business.”

The plaintiff is dissatisfied with this and on June 22, 2017.