1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 17, 2018, the Plaintiff (B) was diagnosed as a person who was engaged in coal production, etc. in the past in the Korea Coal Corporation, the Korea Coal Corporation, etc., and on July 17, 2018, in the Department C located in Ansan-si, the Plaintiff (B) filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant on August 9, 2018.

B. On September 13, 2018, the Defendant rendered a decision on the payment of medical care benefits (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff was exposed to coal and determined-type glass dust, etc., but the exposure period was short, and does not constitute a chronic closed-end disease due to the results of an epidemiological investigation,” on the ground that “the Plaintiff did not constitute an occupational chronic closed-end disease related to his/her duties” (hereinafter “instant disposition”) for eight months from the 1970s to the age of 19.3 months.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion was made from around 1968 to about 1973 to 5 years of the Korea Coal Corporation's Babane (temporary), from September 28, 197 to May 3, 197, from the Korea Coal Corporation's Gabane in the Korea Coal Corporation's Gabane, from May 4, 1978 to April 3, 198, and from the Korea Coal Corporation's Gabane for about 4 years and 11 months from April 3, 1983, the plaintiff engaged in coal dust work, and was exposed to nitrogen oxides in the process of performing the work for the above period of 10 years and 6 months in total.

In addition, the Plaintiff’s smoking power was only intermittently conducted to such a extent that it would lead to non-smoking, so vocational exposure was more important in the cause of the outbreak of the injury and disease of this case.

Therefore, there is a proximate causal relation between the plaintiff's business branch of this case and the plaintiff's business, but it was done on a different premise.