1. Disability benefits provided by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on July 30, 2018, upon a claim for a change in exchange in this Court.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff engaged in dusty work while serving as a production worker at H.

As a result of the precise diagnosis of pneumoconiosis on March 29, 1993, the Plaintiff was determined as “type 1 and cardiopulmonary function (F0)”. A result of the precise diagnosis of pneumoconiosis around February 1998, the Plaintiff was determined as “complication” and was receiving medical care through the above complication from around that time.

B. On December 17, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a claim for disability benefits with the Defendant. On July 3, 2017, the Defendant issued a claim for disability benefits (hereinafter “instant previous disposition”) on the ground that “The Plaintiff’s claim for disability benefits was submitted on December 17, 2015 after three years from March 29, 1993, and the extinctive prescription of the right to claim disability benefits has expired.”

C. On November 8, 2017, the first instance court rendered a judgment citing the Plaintiff’s claim seeking revocation of the previous disposition, and the Defendant appealed against the above judgment and revoked the previous disposition ex officio on July 30, 2018, and again rendered a disposition on the site for disability benefits (hereinafter “instant disposition”) for the following reasons.

The reason for the disposition - The application for pneumoconiosis disability benefits is paid in accordance with the criteria for pneumoconiosis disability grades applied at the time of the diagnosis of pneumoconiosis type and cardiopulmonary function, and the date of the precise diagnosis of pneumoconiosis grade of the 13th grade (hereinafter pneumoconiosis type 1/0, cardiopulmonary function F0) established on July 1, 2003 does not meet the disability grade standards of the plaintiff at the time of the precise diagnosis of pneumoconiosis ( March 29, 1993).- In addition, the right to receive insurance benefits under the provisions of Article 112 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act is not subject to the completion of extinctive prescription unless it is exercised for three years.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 2 evidence, Gap 7 evidence, Eul 7 and 9 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion.