1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. B was diagnosed as pneumoconiosis on December 22, 2003, and on February 5, 2004, applied for a precise diagnosis of pneumoconiosis with the new North Korea site as the final dust work site. On April 21, 2004, as a result of the precise diagnosis of pneumoconiosis conducted on April 21, 2004, it was determined as eligible for medical care under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

B. In paying insurance benefits to B, the Defendant calculated the first special average wage as KRW 57,428.03 in accordance with the special case for calculating the average wage for a person suffering from an occupational disease at the time of diagnosis of pneumoconiosis (hereinafter “special case’s average wage”), and applied the increased or decreased amount as the average wage.

B On May 7, 2010, following the death of May 7, 2010, the Defendant paid the bereaved family benefits to the Plaintiff, who is his bereaved family, in accordance with the same standard.

C. From November 6, 1995 to the 30th of the same month, the Plaintiff confirmed that the last place of business where the net B had worked for the Defendant in accordance with the National Pension Contribution Payment Certification was the same as the same stone (ju) and that the standard monthly income is KRW 1,290,000. As such, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the difference in the average wage and the insurance benefits to the effect that, after calculating the average wage at the time of retirement based on this basis, the increased or decreased wage was corrected as the first average wage until the date when the pneumoconiosis was confirmed, and then, the increase or

On July 5, 2010, the Defendant: (a) accepted the Plaintiff’s application for correction of the average wage on the ground that “All evidentiary data submitted by the Plaintiff are not considered as inevitable data that could be submitted at the time of the first medical care approval; and (b) the application of the special average wage is reasonable; and (c) rejected the payment of the difference in the insurance benefits.”

E. On this issue, the Plaintiff filed a request for examination, and on December 2, 2010, revoked the instant disposition with the purport that “the application of the average wage for special cases is reasonable, but the final dust-generating business place should be deemed as building stones (path).”