1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 31, 2001, Non-party B was employed as a member of the Amateur Motor Corporation and was diagnosed with brain marcing in preparation for the company's athletic games. Accordingly, the medical care was provided until November 30, 2006 and thereafter received disability grade 3, remaining disability grade.

(hereinafter referred to as “approved Injury and Disease”) B.

B On March 4, 2016, died in the Cvalescent Hospital located in Pyeongtaek-si (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), the person directly engaged in the death examination report is indicated as “the heart,” and the preceding person as “the certificate of expansion,” respectively.

C. Around that time, the Plaintiff, a wife of the Deceased, claimed that the death of the Deceased constitutes an occupational accident on the grounds that proximate causal relation exists between the approved branch and the deceased’s death. However, on September 9, 2016, the Defendant decided not to pay survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses on the ground that it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relation between the deceased’s death and the approved injury on the ground that the deceased’s death died due to the aggravation of the expanded heart disease, which is an individual base disease.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, entry in Gap’s 1 through 4 (including additional numbers), the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion has continuously deteriorated the heart function due to the post-ex post-explication of the approved injury.

In addition, I have experienced serious mental stress due to the lack of movement as a result of a severe disorder caused by an approved wound, which led to the aggravation of the existing symptoms beyond the natural progress.

Therefore, since there is a proximate causal relation between the deceased’s death and approved injury, the instant disposition was unlawful on a different premise.

B. 1) The Deceased’s health condition as of May 31, 2001 was 35 years of age at the time of the outbreak of an approved injury and disease, and 50 years of age at the time of the death of March 4, 2016. 2) The Deceased’s health condition from June 199 to December 12 of the same year.