All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The term “occupational accident” under Article 5 subparag. 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act means an accident caused by an employee’s occupational failure during the performance of his/her duties, and thus, there is a proximate causal relation between the employee’s occupational accident and the accident. In such cases, the causal relation between the employee’s occupational accident

Although proximate causal relation is not necessarily required to be proved clearly by direct evidence, it should be proved to the extent that proximate causal relation between work and accident can be inferred by indirect facts, such as health conditions at the time of employment, existence of existing diseases, nature of work engaged, work environment, etc. based on the health and physical conditions of the relevant worker.

(2) On May 9, 2012, the lower court determined that each of the instant dispositions rendered by the Defendant against the Plaintiffs was lawful, on the grounds that it is difficult to deem a proximate causal relationship between the network L, Plaintiff D, and F’s duties and the instant disease or death, based on the following facts based on the facts indicated in its reasoning.

In light of the fact that the net L is exposed to a hazardous substance generated in the crypt process or in the crypt process, which cannot be said to cause human cancer, and that the crypt process was detected in the crypt process, but the crypt process was detected in the crypt process, and that the crypt process was exposed to a high concentration hazardous substance during a short time due to the characteristics of the equipment crypt, even if the crypt was exposed to a hazardous substance generated in the crypt or in other process, the degree of exposure or over-fypt, etc. is likely to cause the disease or promote its progress.