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 was a person who had worked in the Mining Center, etc. for the period of 191, and was diagnosed as chronic closed diseases by C Hospital, and applied for medical care benefits to the Defendant on June 22, 2015, based on the diagnosis of chronic closed diseases by C Hospital.

B. On December 8, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition that, as a result of the pulmonary Functions examination against the Plaintiff, the applicant does not recognize the applicant’s disease as an occupational disease on the ground that the first rate and the first second rate do not meet the chronic closed-pulmonary disease diagnosis standards (the instant disposition was taken below).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

A. The Plaintiff asserted that a chronic closed disease occurred while working in the mining center for about 27 years since 1964, and was diagnosed by C Hospital on April 1, 2015.

However, the defendant made a decision that the second examination result does not meet the criteria for diagnosis even though the result of the second examination was measured differently in the course of the second examination conducted by the D Hospital two times. The disposition of this case is unlawful.

B. (1) The chronic closed disease is a pulmonary disease group with a chronic and non-epidemic nature, which refers to the abnormal and permanent state of the beginning and the expansion of the waste organs due to the destruction of the air space of the end of the three organs and the end of the abandonment.

In order to be diagnosed as the above disease, it should be exposed to coal, rock dust, fume, gas, steam, etc. for not less than 20 years, and one second rate (FEV1/FVC) after the prompt effective engine expansion medication in the waste active quantity inspection is less than 70%, and one second rate (FEV1) is less than 80% of the normal predicted values.

(2) According to the health table and evidence evidence Nos. (1) through (5) as to the instant case, the results of the pulmonary function test conducted two times after the expansion of the engine in the D Hospital.