1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. 1) K (L) is MNU Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Ntan mine”).

(2) From around 1986, K retired from office due to mine closure on March 31, 1993, and after receiving the decision of medical care on September 30, 1996, K died on January 2, 2008.

3) Plaintiff A is the spouse of K, and Plaintiff B, C, D, and E are children of K. B. (B.1) O (P) from 1972 to 1972 work in Qu Mining Center (hereinafter “Ran Mine”), and was judged to be “grade 11” as pneumoconiosis type 2 on September 30, 197.

2) On December 23, 1989, theO retired from office due to the closure of the mine, and on February 28, 2006, after receiving the decision of medical care, theO died on April 18, 2009. 3) Plaintiff F is the spouse, Plaintiff G, H, I, I, and J ofO.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the plaintiffs' assertion that "a person whose disability grade is not determined as of the date of closure of a mine regardless of the period of occurrence of a disaster" is entitled to the payment of disaster consolation benefits.

K andO died of a cause in proximate causal relation with pneumoconiosis during the period of medical care after the date of the mine closure after receiving the determination of a disability grade due to pneumoconiosis before the date of the mine closure, so the final disability grade shall be deemed to have been determined at the time of death, which is the time of the completion of medical care.

Therefore, since K andO constitutes “a person whose disability grade is not determined at the time of closure,” the Defendant should pay disaster compensation benefits to the Plaintiffs.

B. The relevant laws and subordinate statutes were enforced at the time of the retirement of KK under the former Coal Industry Act (amended by Act No. 5453, Dec. 13, 1997).

The former Coal Industry Act (amended by Act No. 4541 of March 6, 1993), which was enforced at the time of retirement ofO, does not differ in the contents related to this case.

Article 39-3.