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

The Plaintiff is a person retired after serving as an coal auxiliary in the Korea Coal Corporation B (hereinafter “instant mining center”) during the period from September 2, 1981 to September 28, 2001.

On April 2, 2015, the Plaintiff claimed that the instant injury and disease occurred due to the Plaintiff’s work after receiving a diagnosis of “the Radon Radon Radon Radon Radon (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”) at the National University Hospital,” and on May 26, 2015, the Plaintiff applied for medical care benefits for the instant injury and disease to the Defendant on May 26, 2015.

On July 13, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition not to approve the Plaintiff’s application on the ground that the Plaintiff’s clinical opinion and the inspection opinion do not comply with the standards for the diagnosis of the instant injury and disease, and that the causal link between the instant injury and the Plaintiff’s business is not recognized after the lapse of a considerable period of time after the Plaintiff retired from the mining center of this case (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

【Ground of recognition” without any dispute, the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case as to Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings is legitimate. The Plaintiff’s work was engaged in drilling and mining tin by using crypryp, etc. in the mining establishment of this case, and the Plaintiff’s work was all causing severe vibration, and both sides of the Plaintiff’s work were forced to be exposed to severe vibration during a long period of time.

Due to such vibration work, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with the injury and disease of this case by undergoing an objective close inspection at the National University Hospital, where the Plaintiff was suffering from symptoms, such as retirement as well as retirement from office in the mining center of this case and the change in color after retirement.

Nevertheless, the defendant's disposition of this case issued by the prosecutor alone on the ground that the injury and disease of this case is not diagnosed or that the causal relationship between the injury and the plaintiff's business is not recognized is unlawful.

Facts of recognition

(b).