The case holding that since Gap is a mine worker for about seven years of digging, collecting coal, starting rock, blasting work, noise in the workplace where Gap worked as a mine worker, and the working period of Gap's work meets the criteria for the causes of noise in distress (explosive noise exceeding 85dB per annum and over 3 years in noise) prescribed in Article 34 (1), (3) and attached Table 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 28506, Dec. 26, 2017), and as a result of the net noise proof test for which Gap received a request for disability benefit, it shows the characteristics of the noise in distress, and if Gap was diagnosed as the above sick disease for 73 years of age with high age, and suffered a long time of sensive disorder due to noise, it can be concluded that the above treatment was unlawful only for the reasons that the elderly's distress or progress occurred rapidly, but it can be concluded that the above treatment was unlawful for the above age of noise in light of the above general opinion.

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

A. On March 25, 2016, the Plaintiff was diagnosed by each of the following: (a) Mabro Mabro Macin Macro (hereinafter “○○ Non-Macin Macin Macro”) in the Macin Macin Macin Macro (hereinafter “Macin Macin”).

B. On May 4, 2016, the Plaintiff claimed disability benefits by asserting that the instant injury to the Defendant was caused by the Plaintiff’s digging, collecting coal, landing rock, and blasting as a mine worker and by being exposed to excessive noise. However, on December 5, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision on disability benefits site payment on the ground that the instant injury to the Defendant appears to be a senior citizens’ distress rather than the noise defect (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed a petition for review against the Defendant, but the petition for review was dismissed on January 24, 2018.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's entries in Gap's 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The injury disease of this case is an occupational disease caused by the Plaintiff’s exposure to excessive noise while digging, collecting coal, starting cancer, and blasting as a mine worker.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) In order to recognize a disease due to an occupational reason stipulated in Article 5 subparag. 1(a) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, there is a proximate causal relation between the pertinent disease and the disease. However, the existence of a proximate causal relation between the business and the accident must be determined on the basis of the health and physical conditions of the relevant employee, not the average person, rather than the average person. The degree of proof does not necessarily have to be clearly proved in medical and natural science, and it is presumed that there is a proximate causal relation between the business and the accident in light of all the circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Du13841, Mar. 9, 2006; 201Du10874, Jul. 25, 2013).

2) In light of the following circumstances, evidence Nos. 3, 5, and 13, part of the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, and the evidence Nos. 3, 1, 2, and 4 of this Court’s request for the examination of medical records against the director of the Gatoo Hospital at the Gatoo University, it can be sufficiently recognized that the disease of this case occurred due to the Plaintiff’s long-term exposure to noise while working as a mineer, or the Plaintiff’s hearing ability at least to reduce the level of nature due to the above noise, and thus, the disease of this case constitutes occupational disease, and otherwise, the disposition of this case is unlawful.

(A) From October 5, 1984 to September 10, 1991, the Plaintiff engaged in digging, collecting coal, landing, and blasting as a mine worker in △△△△ for seven years.

(B) The noise environment of the workplace in which the Plaintiff worked as a mine worker and the period of the Plaintiff’s work meet the criteria for the causes of noise in distress (explosive exposure to more than 85dB noise) prescribed by Article 34(1), 34(3), and [Attachment 3] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 28506, Dec. 26, 2017).

(C) After filing a claim for disability benefits, the Plaintiff received a request for medical examination from the Defendant pursuant to Article 119 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and was subject to a net performance test on September 28, 2016 at the △ University Medical Center, an industrial accident insurance-related medical institution, three occasions on October 6 and October 13 of the same year (hereinafter “net performance test”). As a result, the hearing ability was measured as approximately 44dB on the left-hand side, approximately 52dB on the right-hand side.

(D) As a result of the net impact test, the Plaintiff was found to have suffered from 5,00 Hz group on the left-hand side, and 6,000 Hz group on the right-hand side, which is known as one of the characteristics of the noise state office.

(E) Although the above Lee Jae-in and the medical specialist were unable to know the degree of contribution to the exposure of noise with respect to the Plaintiff, it made it clear that the cause of the instant injury and disease is a “combined cause” and it is “the cause of noise exposure to the Plaintiff.”

(F) After approximately 24 years and 6 months from the retirement of a noise business site, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as the injury and disease of this case. However, the noise-related scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic sc

(G) The Plaintiff was diagnosed as the instant injury and disease when he reached 73 years of age, which is the old age of the senior citizen’s distress, but the Chos shall be classified as a “hyneological distress,” which occurs as a matter of the route in which the sound is delivered, and both the Mariological distress and the senior citizen’s suffering from a noise, and if the occurrence or progress of the senior citizen’s suffering from an accident of the senior citizen’s distress and the senior citizen’s suffering from an accident, it shall not be readily concluded that the instant injury and disease were caused solely for the reason of age at the time of the Plaintiff’s diagnosis of the injury and disease.

(h) The Plaintiff does not appear to have any obspite and disease directly related to the decline in the lusence.

(i) The above medical record appraisal commission clearly admitted the possibility that the Plaintiff’s noise exposure made a certain degree of contribution to the development and progress of the injury and disease of this case by deeming that “the noise exposure to a certain part of the previous noise was affected.” Meanwhile, the above medical record appraisal commission presented the opinion that “the possibility of the causal link between the above medical record and the noise workplace of this case is low.” However, in light of the above contents of the opinion, this part of the opinion does not seem to completely deny the causal relation with the work of this case. Even if the court’s response to the medical record appraisal commission, the result of the court’s appraisal commission is merely a judge’s use of special knowledge and experience where special knowledge and experience are required for fact-finding, and whether there exists a proximate causal relation between the work and the disease is ultimately determined in light of the empirical rule by considering all the circumstances at the time. Thus, even if there is a view that there is a proximate causal relation between the work and the disease of the medical institution’s response to the appraisal report of this case, it is not bound by the court.

(j) As a result of the Korea Centers’s Nutrition Survey conducted between 2010 and 2012 (hereinafter “National Health Nutrition Survey”), the Defendant asserts that the degree of honest loss of “persons aged 70 or older who have not been exposed to noise” was 57.3dB, and that the Plaintiff’s honest loss (to the 44dB on the left right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right) did not appear to have a significant impact on the Cheongbu. However, the National Health Nutrition Survey does not appear to have been used as data to determine the causal relationship between the Cheongbu’s occupational noise and Cheongbu’s difficult to view that the Defendant’s Nutrition survey conducted without complying with the method prescribed in Article 34 and [Attachment Table 3] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and thus, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s Cheongbu’s dypine was exposed to the public health noise survey.”

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment] Relevant Statutes: omitted

Judges Kang Jae-soo