1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

. The wrong determination was made.

In addition, according to the heart and the opinion of the doctor who appraised the deceased's medical records in the first instance trial, it cannot be deemed that the heart disease is the main cause of death, and it is highly likely that the chronic lung disease has contributed to the death of the deceased in combination with the aged. If excluding the smoke power mistakenly determined, the main cause of the chronic lung disease can be presumed as the pneumoconiosis.

Therefore, proximate causal relation between the deceased's death and pneumoconiosis can be seen to be recognized.

B. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence mentioned earlier, Gap evidence Nos. 9, 16, and Eul evidence Nos. 4 (including additional numbers), it is insufficient to acknowledge that there exists a proximate causal relationship between the deceased’s death and pneumoconiosis, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that there exists a proximate causal relationship between the deceased’s death and pneumoconiosis.

The Plaintiff’s assertion is difficult to accept.

① 2012. 7. 15. 작성된 망인의 M병원 입원기록지에는 흡연력으로 “Smoking 30 pack * years"라고 기재되어 있고, 1992. 2. 27. 작성된 망인의 M병원 의무기록지에는 망인을 진료한 의사가 병력란에 ”Smoking : 4 Mo 전 stopped"라고 기재한 내용이 있으며 당시 망인은 64세였던 사실이 인정된다.

If so, at the time of the health examination on March 2, 201, the deceased responded to “total three years and twenty expenses per day” for the past smoking power at the time of the health examination on March 2, 201, and in addition to the fact that the deceased’s father’s mother stated that he/she did not have the smoking power of the deceased, it can be recognized that the deceased smoke for a period of about 30 years prior to the death even if the deceased’s father’s mother stated that he/she did not have the smoking power.

Even if the smoking period of the deceased does not extend to the above period, considering the following circumstances, such circumstance alone does not affect the judgment that it is insufficient to recognize a proximate causal relationship between the death and pneumoconiosis of the deceased.

(2) The Deceased.