1. On December 17, 2015, each of the pneumoconiosis consolation benefits paid to the Plaintiff A and D on December 17, 2015 by the Defendant, and the Defendant on December 9, 2015.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiffs are the bereaved families of Nonparty G, H, I, J, K, and L as follows, and Nonparty deceased are working in coal mines.

After retirement, those who died due to a complication after being diagnosed as pneumoconiosis as follows.

The Defendant’s disability grade on the death date of the deceased’s bereaved family (the Plaintiff) was the pneumoconiosis disability grade determined in accordance with Article 91-4(3) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, since the deceased did not determine the pneumoconiosis disability grade at the time of his/her death pursuant to the proviso of Article 24(3) of

The merger certificate G A on December 4, 2014, 1995 HH B on Sep. 13, 201, 200, 11, 201, Class I tuberculosis I C on April 7, 201, 201, on December 23, 2015, 2005, JDD on April 23, 2002, 202, KS E on November 13, 201, 201.

B. On November 21, 2010, the enforcement date of the Act on the Prevention of Pneumoconiosis amended by the Deceased and the Protection, etc. of Workers with Pneumoconiosis (hereinafter below, the Pneumoconiosis Prevention Act), the Defendant paid pneumoconiosis accident consolation benefits to the Plaintiffs, who are bereaved family members of the Deceased, pursuant to Article 24(1)2 and proviso of Article 24(3) and attached Table 25(2) of the Pneumoconiosis Prevention Act, on the ground that it does not constitute “where there is a physical disability after recovery.”

C. The Plaintiffs asserted that the bereaved family consolation benefits under the former Pneumoconiosis Prevention Act should be paid pursuant to Article 5 of the Addenda to the amended Pneumoconiosis Prevention Act, because they were diagnosed with pneumoconiosis before the enforcement date of the amended Pneumoconiosis Prevention Act, because they constitute “workers whose causes for the payment of disability arose.” Although the Plaintiffs claimed to pay the difference between pneumoconiosis consolation benefits paid according to the amended pneumoconiosis Prevention Act and bereaved family consolation benefits calculated pursuant to the former Act, the Defendant rejected such claim (the following dispositions are subject to each of the instant dispositions).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 6, purport of whole pleadings.