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 reasons for the use of this case by the court, such as the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance, are as follows, except for the removal, addition, or dismissal of the relevant part as follows, and therefore, it is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance (including the attached Form), Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

The third part of the judgment of the first instance is deleted. The following is added after the third part of the judgment of the first instance. In addition, considering the social security nature of disaster compensation benefits under the former Coal Industry Act, it is not reasonable to strictly specify the mine subject to mine closure support. Thus, the defendant is obliged to pay disaster compensation regardless of the time of examination of occupational accidents.

Furthermore, since the first and second mining stations jointly inflict damages related to pneumoconiosis on the Plaintiff, it is jointly and severally liable, and the first mining centers of this case are related to the second mining stations of this case, and it is unreasonable to determine whether to pay disaster consolation benefits based on the time of diagnosis of pneumoconiosis which is determined in accordance with incidental circumstances.

The part of the first instance judgment Nos. 6-5 and 17 are as follows. 4) If so, the mine of another coal mining center newly employed after the retirement worker was retired from the coal mining center where the occupational accident occurred, and even if the disability grade of the retired worker was not determined at the time of the closure of the mine, it is reasonable to deem that the retired worker does not constitute a person eligible for disaster compensation under Article 41 (3) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Coal Industry Act. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the retired worker is liable to pay disaster compensation benefits to the Defendant regardless of the time of the occupational accident (the Plaintiff sought payment of disaster compensation benefits arising from the closure of the second mining center of this case, and thus, the Plaintiff is not acceptable.