1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The reasons why the court of the first instance as to this case are to be stated are as follows: (a) No. 2 of the first instance court’s 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 20; (b) No. 4th 5th 2015, “No. 19th 2015”; (c)” No. 14th 14th 2nd 2016, respectively; and (d) “No. 222th 2016 2nd 2016,” respectively; and (e) “No. 5th 17 17 2nd 13th 13,8 20th 20 and 21st 20th 2nd 1st 202nd 1st 2nd 1st 202nd 2nd 1st 2017th 2nd 2nd 2017th 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 201st 2nd 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 3.

2. A new part.

D. 1) The occupational accident under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to the disease caused by the worker’s occupational accident during his/her work, which is caused by the worker’s occupational accident, so there should be a causal relationship between the work 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 work and the disease should be inferred in light of all the circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7725, Feb. 5, 2002). 2) According to the health stand and the evidence revealed earlier, the Plaintiff did not receive treatment as a disease related to the upper branch of this case before commencing coal mines, and the work site of coal mines for 10 years and 8 months prior to November 11, 197.