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 of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, shall be as follows, except for the dismissal of Article 2-3 (3) (17 to 5, 3) among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows:

Therefore, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Attachment] Section 2-C of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance

Judgment

(1) “Occupational accident” under Article 5 subparag. 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to an accident caused by an employee’s occupational failure during the performance of his/her duties, and there is a proximate causal relation between the occupational accident 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, etc.). 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 business and accident can be inferred by indirect facts, such as the health condition at the time of employment, existence of existing diseases, nature of work engaged and work environment based on the health and physical conditions of the relevant worker, and whether the same kind of disease of another worker working at the same workplace is transferred to the same workplace.

(2) In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the facts and the evidence admitted earlier, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone resulted in only the injury and pulmonary disease of this case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du11801, Aug. 28, 2008).

It is difficult to presume that the existing disease has rapidly deteriorated beyond the natural progress.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted.

(A) In the case of the instant injury and disease, exposure was made to high concentration coal, refined glass dust, nitrogen oxide gas, etc.