1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a worker who was engaged in coal and digging operations in Sung-ro Mining Complex.

B. Around November 5, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical treatment with the Defendant on the ground that, as a result of his/her duties, “malutism disease” (hereinafter “the instant injury”) occurred, the Defendant applied for the approval of medical treatment with the Defendant on April 13, 2015, and the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-approval of the Plaintiff’s application on the ground that “the instant disposition” was rendered on March 13, 2015, on the ground that: (a) the examination of the closed function performed by an Ansan Hospital on March 13, 2015, at the first 77% of the initial rate, which is 70% or more, for the part of the engine expansion and the part of the endeavor-to-expuled activity, is confirmed to be at least 70%; and (b) the occupational

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 4, 5 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff carried out coal and digging operations for 16 years at the Seongbuk Mining Complex Co., Ltd.

On October 28, 2014, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with the instant injury and disease at the Basan Hospital. As a result of the closed function test conducted at the time, the FEV1/FVC is 61%, and the FE1 is 67%, and the FE51 is 67%, in conformity with the standards for the diagnosis of chronic closed diseases.

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful on a different premise.

B. Determination 1) In light of the overall purport of the pleadings as a whole in the statements in Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 1, and 3, in order to be diagnosed as chronic closed-end diseases, it should be determined that “if one second (FEV1/FVC) is less than 70% and the first (FEV1) is less than 80% of the normal predicted value, and the first (FEV1) is less than 80% of the normal predicted value.” (2) According to the evidence No. 2 of this case, according to the results of the closed function test conducted by the medical corporation of the plaintiff on October 28, 2014, the fact that the FEV1/FC is less than 61% and the FEV1 is less than 67% can be acknowledged.

However, the whole purport of the pleadings is added to the statements in Gap evidence 3, 5, Eul evidence 2, and 4.