장해급여부지급처분취소
1. The Defendant’s disposition of disability benefit site payment rendered to the Plaintiff on January 19, 2017 is revoked.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On December 17, 2015, the Plaintiff (B) diagnosed “C non-humanistice” as “Sychopathic chronology, noise risk, and Lee Jae-hoon” (hereinafter “instant injury and disease”). The Plaintiff filed an application for disability benefits with the Defendant, asserting that the Plaintiff, as a mineer, was exposed to noise and caused the instant injury and caused the instant injury and disease in the course of performing his/her work as a miner and as a miner for mine operation.
B. On January 19, 2017, the Defendant decided on the Plaintiff’s position at the site for disability benefits on the ground that “it is difficult to recognize proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff’s work experience and the injury and disease of this case in full view of the following: (a) the Plaintiff had worked continuously for not less than 85dB for not less than three years; (b) the left-hand 5dB, the right-hand 47dB due to noise, age, etc.; (c) the Plaintiff’s request for deliberation by the integrated review agency would be insufficient to identify the causal relation between the noise and the noise in distress; (d) the work performance of the disaster in accordance with the criteria for recognition of the occupational disease of the noise in distress and the time of suspension and diagnosis; and (e) the time and age of the noise exposure; and
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.
The Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed a request for review with the Board of Audit and Inspection, but the Board of Audit and Inspection dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for review on November 8, 2018.
【Unsatisfy of the grounds for recognition】Unsatisfy of the dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 6, 7, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 2 (including each number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion constitutes occupational disease caused by the Plaintiff’s excessive noise while working as a mine worker.
(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.
(c) If it is intended to recognize a disease due to an occupational reason stipulated in Article 5 subparagraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the disease shall be on duty.