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

A. On April 1, 1984, the Plaintiff, a student, worked in the D Mining Complex Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter “D Mining Complex”), and retired from office on April 1, 1984. On March 20, 2015, the Plaintiff was diagnosed by E Hospital as “Madic Closed-pulmonary Disease” (hereinafter “instant injury”), and filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant.

B. On October 18, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision not to grant approval (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Plaintiff, while performing dusty work in coal mines, exposed to coal and determined glass dust, etc., but it is determined that the exposure period was short so that the cumulative exposure did not exceed the cumulative exposure amount. As such, the Defendant did not recognize a proximate causal relation with the duties of the instant superior branch.”

C. The Plaintiff filed a request for examination with the Defendant, but received a decision to dismiss the request for examination from the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff did not reach the twenty-year period stipulated in the defendant's guidelines, but worked as a light for 10 and five years, and with respect to the smoking power known as the main outbreaks of the injury and disease of this case, the plaintiff only smoked for the past five years, and since around 190, the plaintiff has not any relationship between smoking and the injury and disease of this case since the non-smoking since 1990, and the plaintiff was treated as a pulmonary tuberculosis, etc. around November 194, and the plaintiff was treated as a pulmonary tuberculosis, etc. of the pneumoconiosis in the process of treating the pulmonary tuberculosis, etc., in consideration of the fact that the disease of this case falls under the occupational accident, but the disposition of this case by the defendant on different premise is unlawful.

B. The term “occupational accident” under Article 5 subparag. 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to an accident caused by an employee’s negligence in the course of performing his/her duties.