beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff’s wife B (hereinafter “the network”) is from March 1, 2013 to a person who had worked as a English curriculum and advanced skills teacher at the Busan East District Office of Education from March 1, 2013.
B. On February 11, 2017, at around 15:15, the Deceased used the head in the shower room of the sports center in the apartment complex, and received emergency treatment after being transferred to a D hospital through the 119 first aid unit, and then was transferred to the Indonese University Hospital again at around 17:00 on the same day, the Deceased was diagnosed as a propperperiosis (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”). On February 15, 2017, the Deceased received treatment by being transferred to the East University Hospital on February 17, 2017, but died on February 13:53, 2017.
A person directly in the death diagnosis document for the deceased is indicated as “cerebral injury”, “malopical brain infinites”, “malopical brain infinites” and “malopical blood infinites”.
C. The Plaintiff filed a claim for the payment of compensation for survivors of public officials who died on duty on the ground that the deceased’s death on the ground that the deceased’s death on duty constitutes a case of death on duty, but the Defendant rendered a decision on the compensation for survivors of public officials who died on duty on May 24, 2017 on the ground that “It is difficult to view that excessive work beyond ordinary and ordinary limits was sustained and concentrated according to the result of confirmation of the deceased’s ordinary duty performance and the details of excessive work. In light of the medical characteristics and the cause of the death of the deceased, in light of the deceased’s death, rather than due to the result of his/her official duty, the deceased’s death on the ground that there was competition between a congenital cerebral connection and the
(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 11, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is 60 times each year from 2015 to 2016.