1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff was diagnosed on September 2014, and applied for medical care benefits to the Defendant on November 2014, 2014.

On February 23, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision not to approve the application on the ground that the instant injury and disease cannot be recognized as an occupational disease to the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, A’s evidence Nos. 1 and 5, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the injury and disease of this case occurred due to exposure to waste cancer-causing substances, such as determined free acid, etc., while working as a prior coal part of the coal in which the Plaintiff was working in the site of B, C, and D, for more than 12 years from around 1972 to 1984, it was unlawful that the instant disposition was unlawful.

B. The term “occupational accident” under Article 5 subparag. 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to the injury, disease, physical disability, or death of an employee who was caused by his/her duties during the performance of his/her duties. As such, there should be causation between the duties and the occurrence of the accident, and the causal relationship must be attested by the party

According to the evidence No. 3, it is confirmed that the plaintiff worked as a shotbu in the D Mining Complex from April 9, 1981 to July 8, 1984, but it is insufficient to recognize that the disease in this case occurred due to duties, such as exposure to the shotum, etc. during the shot work, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the disease in this case occurred.

Rather, if Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 1, 3, and 5 showed the overall purport of the pleadings, the plaintiff is exposed to the coal dust or the refined free acid, etc. because the plaintiff is not engaged in coal crushing or strawing in coal of pite form.