1. On December 12, 2013, the Defendant revoked the decision to pay bereaved family's compensation, which was replaced by the Plaintiff.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The deceased B (hereinafter “the deceased”) was appointed as a police officer on July 1, 2002, and was promoted to a slope on July 1, 2008. From May 23, 2012, 2012, he/she served as patrol staff at the Gwangju Southern Police Station D patrol staff.

B. On August 16, 2013, at around 06:05, the Deceased, while making an exercise in the indoor swimming pool in the Fgymnasium located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju, came out of the swimming pool and was transferred to the hospital, but at around 13:30 on the same day, the Deceased died at the emergency room of G hospital.

The death diagnosis report of the deceased issued by the G Hospital physician H on the date of death is written as being a acute funeral by the person directly in charge of the death, and is written as the middle-line event is a cardio-cerebral blood and an exorculous beer of the heart.

C. The Plaintiff, a spouse of the deceased, claimed compensation for bereaved families to the Defendant. On December 12, 2013, the Defendant rendered a decision on the compensation for bereaved families’ compensation (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that it is difficult to view that the disease of the deceased was a result of his/her performance of duties, and it is presumed that the disease of the deceased was caused by the combination of physical and mental factors of the deceased, and the cause of his/her death was caused by his/her death.

The Plaintiff filed a request for review with the Public Official Pension Benefit Review Committee on the instant disposition on January 27, 2014, but the Public Official Pension Benefit Review Committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for review on March 12, 2014 and notified the Plaintiff on March 20, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 3-1, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 2, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that he/she caused tuberculosis in a state where he/she was found to have been immuned due to overwork and stress due to official duty, and there was a need for adequate stability, but there was a disease due to working conditions.