1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 1, 2014, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as a chronic closed-pulmonary disease (hereinafter “instant injury”) on July 1, 2014, and applied for medical care benefits to the Defendant on November 4, 2014.

B. On May 12, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition of non-approval for medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”) with respect to the Plaintiff on the ground that “this case’s disposition is not recognized as an occupational disease because it is not in compliance with the standards for diagnosis of chronic closed diseases,” on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff’s examination on the pulmonary function performed at the Hospital on March 17, 2015 on the ground that the primary rate, which is the non-influor of the primary rate of non-influor of the fluoric activity after administering the fluoral

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that he had been exposed for a long time to high concentration coal and determined free acid dust, and nitrogen oxides gas generated during blasting operations, etc. while performing the Plaintiff’s work for about 30 years, and was transferred to the instant injury and disease due to this, and was diagnosed as the instant injury and disease as a result of the examination on the waste function conducted by the relevant Yasan Hospital on July 1, 2014.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case made on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 5 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence, the injury and disease in this case is acknowledged as follows: "if the first first (FEV1/FVC) rate is below 70% and the first (FV1) rate is below 80% of the normal predicted value, the second (FE1) level is below 80% of the normal predicted value." According to the result of the court's entrustment of physical examination with respect to the chief of the Han River University Gangseo-dong Hospital, it is recognized that the plaintiff failed to meet the above determination criteria as a result of the examination of the closure quantity, and the only statement of evidence Nos. 1 through 3 alone is recognized as having been the injury and disease in this case to the