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.

1. The reasoning for this part of the disposition by the court is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff, the instant disposition taken on a different premise is unlawful even though the injury and disease constituted an occupational accident.

① Even if the Plaintiff did not reach the 20-year period prescribed in the Defendant’s guidelines, the Plaintiff worked as a mining unit for about 10 years and 5 months.

② With respect to the history of smoking known as the main outbreak of the instant injury and disease, since around 1990, the Plaintiff was smoking cessation since then since 1990, and thus, there is no relationship between smoking and the outbreak of the instant injury and disease.

③ On November 1, 1994, the Plaintiff received treatment due to pulmonary tuberculosis, etc. by a witness of pneumoconiosis mergers, etc., and the instant injury to the disease occurred during the treatment process of pulmonary tuberculosis, etc.

B. The “occupational accident” under Article 5 subparag. 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to an accident resulting from an employee’s duties while performing his/her duties, and there is a proximate causal relation between the duties and the accident.

In such cases, the causal relationship between the worker's work and the accident shall be attested by the party asserting it.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Du8606 Decided October 27, 2004). Meanwhile, the proximate causal relation is not necessarily required to be proved by direct evidence in medical or natural science, but should be proved to the extent that the proximate causal relation between the work and the accident is likely to be inferred by indirect facts, such as the health condition at the time of employment based on the health and physical conditions of the relevant employee, the existence of an existing disease, the nature of the relevant work and the working environment, and whether the same kind of disease of another employee who worked in the same workplace is transferred to

Supreme Court on August 28, 2008