1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. All plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

3. The plaintiffs' total costs of litigation.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 5, 2019, the deceased A (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) worked as a local social welfare assistant in the former city B office or G Gu office in the former city, and died of the work as “compact, fry, and shock” due to pulmonary color and sloping water.

B. On March 8, 1994, the deceased was subject to an accident that had been working at the Hexan-gu H office in the Jeoncheon-gu Office in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City and caused grain to be paid to a person in need of livelihood (hereinafter “the instant accident”). On March 13, 2003, the deceased decided on the first medical care for official duties and received an approval for the extension of the medical care period from March 13, 2003, the deceased’s medical care for light signboards escape certificate, the left-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-consort collision, the right-hand-consort collision, the restoration condition and consort-consorical-consoring-out, the left-hand-hand-hand-consort-consoring-consoring-consoring-consoring-consort infection, the Defendant obtained the approval for the extension of the medical care period from March 13, 2013.

C. On September 28, 2017, the Deceased applied for the approval of additional injury and disease to the Defendant on October 31, 2017, upon receiving the diagnosis of “the textile part and the detailed unknown part” from C, a foundation corporation. However, on November 3, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition of approval of additional injury and disease (hereinafter “the instant disposition”) against the Deceased based on the medical adviser’s opinion that “it is difficult to recognize the textile part as a cause of an occupational accident due to symptoms other than the name of disease, and it is difficult to deem that the injury and disease was directly and mainly caused by the death and injury.”

Meanwhile, the plaintiff D is the de facto spouse of the deceased at the time of the death of the deceased, and the plaintiff E and F are children supported by the deceased at the time of the death of the deceased.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3-18, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The instant disposition is lawful.