1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From January 27, 2014, the Plaintiff performed 20 years’ mining and coal mine digging operations in a smoke mining station, coal mine, etc.

1. In the precise diagnosis of pneumoconiosis conducted up to 29.2, it was determined that the pneumoconiosis type conditions (0/0) and cardiopulmonary function conditions (F0) were normal (F0).

B. On March 14, 2014, the Defendant rendered the Plaintiff a disposition of refusal of medical care in accordance with the result of the above close inspection and deliberation by the Pneumoconiosis Review Committee.

C. The Plaintiff brought the instant lawsuit against the instant disposition without going through the previous trial procedure.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap 1's evidence, purport of whole pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. On May 22, 2014, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was diagnosed as one type of pneumoconiosis disease type (p/q, 1/0, 2 Lungungzones) based on scarcity’s p/q, 1/0, and 2 Lungungzone’s view. ScarT also observed the scarcity’s high sea level photograph (HCRT).

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Determination 1) According to Article 83-2(1) [Attachment 11-2] of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, in order to be eligible for pneumoconiosis insurance benefits, the type of pneumoconiosis C shall be at least the first type, the degree of suffering from pneumoconiosis and the progress of pneumoconiosis shall be determined by reading the chest simple radiation image, and the classification of pneumoconiosis C shall be in accordance with the complete classification as prescribed by the International Labor Organization (ILO) International Cinematographic Video Classification (2000). (2) The appraisal of medical records by the court of this case on January 27, 2014 and on May 15, 2014, the Plaintiff’s chest scarcity image taken at the Seoul Sungsung Hospital, and the Plaintiff’s chest high-rise-level computer photograph taken on May 15, 2014, are determined by taking comprehensive account of the Plaintiff’s scarcity image, and the Plaintiff’s scarcity-type crym or lower-level maloculic image.