1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Basic facts were based on the Plaintiff’s husband B from 1982 to 1993, and the Plaintiff’s husband B worked as an coal mine in the Chutane, Dhutane, E mining center, etc.

On July 6, 2011, the Deceased died from the hospital of Taesan (hereinafter referred to as the “Saunsansan”) on the following grounds: (a) on July 6, 2011: (b) on the 17:46, the deceased died of the deceased’s direct death, (c) on the part of the le

The Plaintiff asserted that the waste cancer, which caused the death of the deceased, caused the death, was smelted in the course of performing duties in coal mines, and claimed the bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses to the Defendant.

On April 10, 2012, the Defendant rendered a decision to refuse payment on the ground that the death of the deceased cannot be deemed as a pneumoconiosis and a combination thereof (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

Therefore, the Plaintiff filed a request for review with the Defendant on June 2012, which was dismissed, and again filed a request for reexamination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Committee, but was dismissed on December 17, 2012, and received the decision on December 26, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 3, Eul evidence Nos. 4, and the purport of the entire argument as to whether the disposition of this case is legitimate or not, the plaintiff's assertion that the disposition of this case was legitimate or not, from underground coal mines, worked for not less than

Although there is no opinion of pneumoconiosis against the deceased, considering the result of the study that the primary lung cancer occurs easily and salvable to the mining workers employed under the ground, it is an occupational disease caused by the work experience of the deceased as carbon.

Therefore, there is a proximate causal relationship between the deceased’s death and his/her work (the Plaintiff stated that the deceased’s death was an primary lung cancer that is not accompanied by pneumoconiosis and thus, the claim for pneumoconiosis survivors’ benefits is not made). The same is as indicated in the relevant statutes.

In fact, the Deceased has undergone a precise examination of pneumoconiosis from around five times from around 2006, and it is 0/0 (normal) of pneumoconiosis dogs every time.