2. On February 6, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition to pay pneumoconiosis consolation benefits to the Plaintiffs.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The reasoning of the court’s argument concerning the above part is as follows: (a) the third to fourth to 18 of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the part of the plaintiffs’ argument; and (b) thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. The key issue of this case is whether the deceased, who was receiving medical care benefits at the time of the enforcement of the Act on the Prevention of Pneumoconiosis and Protection, etc. of Pneumoconiosis Workers (amended by Act No. 10304 of May 20, 2010), was a worker before the enforcement of the above Act. Article 9(1) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (wholly amended by Act No. 4826 of December 22, 1994), which was in force at the time of the diagnosis of pneumoconiosis, separates the types of insurance benefits into “medical care benefits, temporary disability compensation benefits, disability benefits, injury-disease compensation benefits, and funeral expenses,” and Article 2 subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Rule of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (wholly amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Labor No. 97 of Apr. 29, 195), provides for the effect of “the injury or disease” as above, “the injury or disease has decreased due to permanent or physical damage to his body,” and Article 5 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act provides for the treatment or treatment of the disease.”