1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The court's explanation on this part of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance under Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. 1) The parties’ assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s husband B (hereinafter “the deceased”).

(2) The deceased’s work and death during the anti-life cancer treatment, which were diagnosed by pneumoconiosis symptoms, while engaging in long-term dust-generating operations, was diagnosed by pneumoconiosis, and died during the anti-life cancer treatment. As such, the instant disposition was unlawful. (2) At the time when the Defendant’s assertion of the deceased’s work, it did not inhale dust of polyvinyl chloride (PVC), which is a substance causing cancer, at the time of the Plaintiff’s work to collect and melting the waste vinyl, and there was no other evidence exposed to the waste cancer-generating substances.

Although the Deceased was approved for medical care due to pneumoconiosis, since there was no experience in dusty work in mining, it cannot be recognized as a combination of pneumoconiosis, and there was no causal link between the deceased’s work and the death caused by primary lung cancer. Therefore, the instant disposition is legitimate.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. In order for a worker who is or was engaged in dusty work to be recognized as an occupational accident when he/she dies, a proximate causal relationship between pneumoconiosis, complication, etc. should be acknowledged, and such causal relationship does not necessarily have to be clearly proved in medical and natural science. If it is presumed that there is a proximate causal relationship between pneumoconiosis, complication, etc. of a worker when considering the type of pneumoconiosis, cardiopulmonary function, complication, gender, age, etc. of the worker, if it is presumed that there is a proximate causal relationship between pneumoconiosis, complication, etc. and the accident

(Supreme Court Decision 2016Du55292 Decided March 30, 2017) D.

Judgment

Gap evidence 7, 12, Eul.