1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. As a result of the precise diagnosis of pneumoconiosis conducted from December 8, 2009 to December 11, 2009, the deceased D (hereinafter “the deceased”) was diagnosed of pulmonary tuberculosis of pneumoconiosis type 1 and pneumoconiosis symptoms, and was decided by the Defendant for medical care.

(hereinafter “instant decision on medical treatment”). B.

The Deceased died on December 16, 2013, and the Plaintiffs, as their children, claimed for the payment of bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses to the Defendant.

On July 15, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision on the site payment on the ground that “The exact cause of death of the deceased is unknown, but the chronic aggravation, the blood transfusion, and the urine are presumed to be the cause of death, and the chronic renal failure or the urine dyssis is not related to the pneumoconiosis, and even if the pulmonary dysium is the cause of death, the pulmonary dysium function of the deceased is determined not to affect the occurrence or progress of the pulmonary dysium, and thus, there is no proximate causal relationship between the pneumoconiosis and the death,” according to the opinion of the research institute of occupational pulmonary Diseases, etc.

(hereinafter referred to as the “existing Disposition”). C.

Although the Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the above disposition and filed a request for examination, the Defendant dismissed the request for examination on December 30, 2015, following deliberation by the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Examination Committee.

The Plaintiffs filed a request for reexamination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, but the said Committee also rejected the request for reexamination on March 25, 2016.

On August 4, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a claim for the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses to the second Defendant. However, on August 16, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision on the re-sale of the following site on the ground that the instant previous disposition was made in accordance with the result of consultation with the Institute of Occupational Apulmonary Diseases.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [The ground for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, and the evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, and 7 are numbers.