장해급여부지급처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The plaintiff shall bear the costs of appeal.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The facts below the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or are recognized by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 2, 4-1, and 2.
[1] On January 5, 2016, the Plaintiff (BB) was diagnosed by the “C non-humane and National Assembly member” of Boli-si located in Boli-si, with the Mali-si’s “Bomic chronological chronological chronological chronological chronological chronological chronological ect,” and received the diagnosis of the instant injury.
On March 25, 2016, the Plaintiff, based on the above diagnosis, claimed disability benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act to the Defendant.
[2] On January 13, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition that the Plaintiff does not pay disability benefits (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
The reason for the instant disposition was that the total of 1 year and 9 months work experience, including D Mining Center (6 months from March 1, 198 to August 16, 198) and Emhu (1 year and 3 months from January 5, 191 to March 28, 192) in the Insurance Benefit Ledger was confirmed, and even if the record of the National Tax Service's income certification was estimated, the noise business place, such as the mining center, falls short of the noise dratity recognition standard with 2 years and 4 months, based on the health insurance progress test conducted on August 20, 208, the fact that it was confirmed that it was diagnosed as falling under class 9 and class 7 of the disability grade No. 78B due to the fact that it was conducted on August 20, 2008, and the three-year period prescribed in the Insurance Industry Compensation Act has elapsed, and the causal relationship between the instant work and the instant disease was not recognized.
2. The plaintiff's assertion was exposed to strong noise while working for about 15 years in Fhutan, etc. in Fhutan, etc., and the disease of this case occurred. Even if the plaintiff's work experience in the noise workplace does not reach three years, a proximate causal relation is acknowledged between the plaintiff's work and the injury and disease of this case.
Even though the plaintiff filed a claim for disability benefits after three years from the date of diagnosis by the office, it is argued that the period of extinctive prescription under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act has expired.