1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On April 15, 1987, the instant disposition B (hereinafter referred to as “the network”) was employed by Daewoo Shipbuilding Marine Co., Ltd., and retired on February 1, 2009, when performing the pre-processing (P/B) work (P/B) work (the removal of melting parts of steel plates by using the darar for the design) of the hull.

After that, from April 1, 201 to February 28, 2012, the Deceased performed the pre-treatment work in the Company C, and from March 1, 2012 to July 25, 2012 by the Company D.

On August 21, 2012, the deceased diagnosed the lung cancer (hereinafter “instant injury and disease”), and applied for the first medical care benefit to the Defendant on March 12, 2013.

On December 19, 2013, the Defendant rendered a disposition not to grant medical care on the ground that the instant injury and disease cannot be recognized as an occupational disease.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Deceased died thereafter, and the Plaintiff is the deceased’s spouse.

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-4, 7-9, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4-6 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The injury of this case alleged by the plaintiff constitutes an occupational disease caused by the deceased's long-term exposure to various cancer substances, such as asbestos in the shipbuilding yard and glass acid, and thus, the disposition of this case must be revoked as unlawful.

B. The deceased presented smoking, asbestos, and determined free acid due to the possible cause of the injury or disease of this case caused by the deceased. There is no objective evidence to deem that the deceased was exposed to asbestos or determined free acid to the extent that he/she had a sacrine in the shipbuilding yard. On the other hand, the deceased has smoked for about 30 years a day, and smoking was deemed the most important and strong cause of the injury or disease of this case (the evidence No. 5 of this court, the result of each request for the examination of medical records against Samsung Seoul Hospital of this court, the character Seoul Hospital of this Court, and the purport of all the arguments). In light of the evidence No. 1-5 of this case, the fact inquiry of Yangsan National University Hospital of this court alone is the result of the fact inquiry about the Yangsan National University Hospital of this case.