1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasons for the judgment of this court, such as accepting the judgment of the court of first instance, are as follows: (a) evidence submitted by the plaintiffs in addition (Evidence A 11) and each fact-finding conducted on L of the Repulmonary medicine of the J Hospital and L of the K Hospital Employment and Vocational Environment of the K Hospital, which cannot be viewed differently from the court of first instance even if the result of the fact-finding conducted on L of the J Hospital Employment and E of the K Hospital Employment. The judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance (including “related statutes” but excluding the part “3. conclusion”) except for the modification of the pertinent part as follows 2. Thus, it is acceptable as it is

2. The 6th part to be modified “high” of the 6th part is as follows:

【A high level. As such, the following is added between 6th 8-9 and 40th 1st 6th 7th 8th 199: (a) the presumption of smoking capacity in the case of the Deceased is the average tobacco consumption (unit A): smoking period (unit (unit A): (a) and five years after non-smoking; and (b) the risk of the outbreak of waste cancer occurs.

【The deceased’s work ability is not considered to have caused the death by increasing the aggravation rate of the lung cancer. Although the deceased’s work ability is likely to comprehensively contribute to the outbreak of the lung cancer, the deceased’s work ability is likely to have been in advance of the outbreak time. However, the deceased, July 1938, diagnosed on the injury and disease in August 2015 (the fact that the waste cancer occurred after the full smoking power of 77 years and 40 years, in light of the fact that the waste cancer occurred after the full smoking power of 1938, the work ability of the deceased was confirmed by the work force without any basis to determine that the work ability of the deceased was rapid in the outbreak of the lung cancer, or that the waste cancer was diagnosed after the diagnosis of the pneumoconiosis, it does not appear that there was a reason to determine the degree of contribution of the work ability, such as the case where the waste cancer occurred by the inseminator’s asbestos due to the exposure to asbestos widely known for smoking and rise effect.