1. The Defendant, May 25, 2016, imposed on the Plaintiff A, and the Plaintiff B on November 1, 2016, respectively.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The net C (the spouse of the Plaintiff A) works as a mining source to the Korea Coal Corporation D Mining Corporation.

After retirement, he was diagnosed with pneumoconiosis on May 7, 2001.

As a result of the precise diagnosis of pneumoconiosis conducted from May 7, 2001 to December 12, 2001, the network C died on October 26, 2015 while receiving a diagnosis of “mal disease type No. 1 (1/1) and scarcity (ef)” and receiving a diagnosis of “mal disease type No. 1 (1/1)”.

(b) The net E (the spouse of the Plaintiff B) works as a mining source in the FO mine;

On September 17, 1999, the pneumoconiosis was diagnosed.

As a result of the precise diagnosis of pneumoconiosis conducted from September 27, 199 to October 2 of the same year, the network E died on April 29, 2014 while receiving the diagnosis of pneumoconiosis.

C. Based on Article 5 of the Addenda (amended by Act No. 10304, May 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) of the Act on the Prevention of Pneumoconiosis as the deceased’s spouse, the Plaintiffs requested the Defendant to pay bereaved family consolation benefits as prescribed by the former Pneumoconiosis Prevention Act (amended by Act No. 10304, May 20, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply). However, on May 25, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition on the ground that each deceased’s spouse cannot be deemed as having suffered disability consolation benefits or having satisfied the requirements for the payment of disability consolation benefits under the former Pneumoconiosis Prevention Act, on November 1, 2016, on the ground that it does not constitute “workers who received disability consolation benefits (including workers who suffered disability benefits before this Act enters into force)” as prescribed by Article 5 of the Addenda of the Pneumoconiosis Prevention Act.

Plaintiff

A filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on August 23, 2016 on the pertinent disposition, but was ruled dismissed on November 15, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful.