1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On March 11, 1996, the net B (hereinafter referred to as "the network") was working for the AS Construction Co., Ltd., and there was a stroke.

The Defendant recognized the brain stroke of the deceased as an occupational accident, and approved the “the brain stroke, the left-hand part part part of the body, and the normal seizure receipt” (hereinafter “the approved injury of this case”) as a result of this accident.

By January 26, 199, the deceased received medical care benefits for the treatment of the approved injury and disease of this case, and terminated the treatment on the same day, and received the disability pension from the defendant under class 8 of class 5.

On November 10, 2013, the Deceased was found to have lost consciousness by his/her families going out of his/her own house and returned from his/her own house, and was sent by the 119 emergency squad to the Seoul Metropolitan Government Hospital (hereinafter referred to as the “Saman Hospital”), but died on the same day.

In the death report, the deceased’s private person is indicated as “inbound death of a person whose reputation is unknown”.

As the deceased’s spouse, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses, claiming that the deceased died due to the instant approved injury. However, on March 20, 2014, the Defendant’s Seoul Seoul Seoul Seoul Seoul Seoul Seoul Seoul Seoul Diplomatic Order issued a disposition of survivors’ benefits and funeral funeral expenses (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that medical causation cannot be acknowledged between the deceased’s death and the instant approved injury’s death.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a petition for review seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Defendant [the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act”)]

(See Article 103) The Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for examination on July 17, 2014.

[Reasons for recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 2-2, Evidence No. 3-1, Evidence No. 4-1, and evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire argument as to whether the disposition of this case is legitimate or not, the Plaintiff’s assertion is legitimate for a long period of time due to brain-related disasters.