1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasons why the court should explain concerning this case, such as the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance, are as follows, and the part concerning Chapters 6, 15, 7, and 18 of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it shall be accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of

[1] Article 91-10 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act”) provides that a worker who is or was engaged in dusty work shall be construed as pneumoconiosis, complication, or other causes related to pneumoconiosis (hereinafter “harm, complication, etc.”).

If death is recognized as occupational accident, matters to be considered when determining whether death was caused by pneumoconiosis shall be determined by Presidential Decree. According to delegation, Article 83-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act provides that matters to be considered when determining whether death was caused by pneumoconiosis shall be the type of pneumoconiosis, cardiopulmonary function, merger certificate, gender, age, etc. In order to be recognized as occupational accident in the event of death of a worker who is or was engaged in dusty work, proximate causal relation between pneumoconiosis, merger certificate, etc. should be established in order to be recognized as occupational accident. Such causal relation does not necessarily have to be clearly proven in medical and natural science. If a proximate causal relation exists between pneumoconiosis, cardiopulmonary function, merger certificate, gender, age, etc. when considering the pneumoconiosis type of pneumoconiosis, merger certificate, etc. of a worker, it should be deemed as having been proved, but the burden of proof can be determined on the part of the claimant’s assertion (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Du5292, Mar. 30, 2017).