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 February 9, 1981 to May 15, 2014, the Plaintiff served in the Korea Coal Corporation’s Korea Coal Corporation’s Korea Coal Corporation. On August 29, 2017, the Plaintiff diagnosed the “malan infection on both sides” (hereinafter “instant injury”) and applied for the first medical care benefit to the Defendant.

B. However, on April 19, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition to grant medical care non-approval (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff according to the Seoul Occupational Disease Determination Committee that “the proximate causal relation between the instant branch and the Plaintiff’s business is not recognized” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff suffered from the injury of the injury of the injury of the injury of the injury of the injury of the injury of the injury of the injury of the injury of the injury of the injury of the disaster of this case by performing for a long time the physical burden of the injury of the injury of the injury of the injury of the injury of the injury of the injury of the injury of the injury, such as rock, bomb, earth and sand, etc., using vibration tools, such as the start, bomb, and fla

B. Determination 1) Since an occupational accident under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to a disease caused by an employee’s occupational accident while performing his/her duties, there must be a causal relationship between the occupational and the disease. The causal relationship must be proved by the party asserting it, and even if it is not necessarily necessary to prove it clearly in medical and natural science, a proximate causal relationship between the occupational and the disease should be inferred by considering all circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7725, Feb. 5, 2002). However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account evidence 7, evidence 2, and evidence 2, the results of the examination of the medical record and the overall purport of the arguments with respect to the head of the Busan Hospital at Korea University at Korea, Korea, Korea, and Korea, the Plaintiff.