장해급여부지급처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On December 28, 2015, the Plaintiff was diagnosed by the Mali-Mali-Mali-Mali (hereinafter “the instant injury”). On March 22, 2016, the Plaintiff claimed disability benefits to the Defendant.
B. On January 16, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition to pay disability benefits (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s work was confirmed to have been engaged in CY for at least three years in CY, etc., but it cannot be confirmed that the Plaintiff was engaged in any work process other than CY, and considering the Plaintiff’s medical capabilities, such as Muran-gun and Muran Muran-gun, and the age at the time of the examination of Cheongdominology and the period of suspension of noise exposure, it is difficult to find a proximate causal relationship between the Plaintiff’s work and the Defendant’s office.
C. On April 19, 2017, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for examination with the Board of Audit and Inspection on April 19, 2017, but the request for examination was dismissed on August 17, 2018
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 3 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff was exposed to not less than 85dB noise while working in the mining center for not less than three years, and there was no other disease that may cause the injury of this case. At the time of the diagnosis of the injury of this case, there was a sudden and abnormal damage of not less than the average of the opic power of ordinary people over 70 years old that was not already exposed to noise at the time of the diagnosis of the injury of this case. In light of the fact that the plaintiff was actually suffering from the Melalaura, and that there was no less than the Melalaura and there was no influence on the injury of this case, the disease of this case should be revoked on a different premise, even though the disease of this case fell under the noise in the Melaura or at least the Melaura was aggravated due to the noise, and at least
B. Facts of recognition 1) Plaintiff’s noise exposure experience (D students from April 1, 198 to February 28, 1989)