2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is working as a police official from September 4, 1976 to September 20, 1993.

Retirement, from January 1, 1997 to June 30, 2008, the Road Traffic Authority shall work for the Road Traffic Act.

The retirement was made.

B. On April 6, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a claim for industrial accident medical care benefits with the Defendant, on the grounds that: (a) the Machine of each of the Machine and Echine engaged in a business that is exposed to noise for a long time at the time when the Road Traffic Authority is in office; and (b)

On May 12, 201, the defendant filed a claim for disability benefits within three years from the date when the plaintiff did not perform the work exposed to noise because the noise level at the expressway site of the plaintiff 78-83.9dB does not meet the criteria for recognition of occupational diseases of the noise state office under Article 34 [Attachment 3] of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and the causes of the noise state are diverse. Therefore, it is difficult to see that there is a proximate causal relation with the plaintiff's poor state office. ② Even if the noise state office is caused by work, there is no obvious treatment method for the noise state office, and even if it is caused by work, it is confirmed on January 25, 2005 that the time when the plaintiff did not perform the work exposed to noise is confirmed to be January 25, 2005. Thus, the right to claim disability benefits was already extinguished due to the completion of prescription.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence 6, and Eul evidence 1, respectively.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (i.e., each of the following subparagraphs) and the second name of the Plaintiff were first generated due to noise and occupational interruptions in a police officer’s service, but the performance noise and noise in the national net performances in order to promote the traffic saving and broadcasting service, which were employed by the Road Traffic Authority, sharply aggravated by the vehicle noise on expressway in the course of performing the national net-time performances to promote the traffic saving and broadcasting service of the Road Traffic Authority.

The plaintiff moved from the Road Traffic Authority on January 25, 2005 to the planning room, but the plaintiff moved to the planning room.