장해급여부지급처분취소
1. The Defendant’s decision to pay disability benefits to the Plaintiff on December 10, 2018 shall be revoked.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On September 13, 2016, the Plaintiff (B) diagnosed the two-way Cheongneopic Cheongsung, the noise effect, and the second name (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the instant injury”). The Plaintiff filed an application for the payment of disability benefits with the Defendant, asserting that the instant injury was caused by exposure to the noise in the course of digging, digging, etc., as a mine worker, while doing so.
B. On December 10, 2018, the Defendant determined the Plaintiff’s disability benefit site level on the ground that “the Plaintiff has been exposed to noise of not less than 85dB consecutively for not less than three years, but considering natural honest loss, etc. after the suspension of noise work, the relationship between the Plaintiff’s difficulties and work is insufficient.”
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.
The plaintiff appealed against this and filed a request for an examination to the defendant, but the request for examination was dismissed on May 2, 2019.
【Fact-finding without a dispute over the basis of recognition】 The evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including each branch number, if there are branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and 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 exposure to excessive noise while digging and digging throughout the Plaintiff’s mine as a mine worker.
(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.
C. In order to recognize a disease due to an occupational reason stipulated in Article 5 subparag. 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the disease is caused by the occupational reason, and there is a proximate causal relation between the occupational and the disease, which must be attested by the assertion.
However, the existence of proximate causal relationship between work and accident should be determined on the basis of the health and physical conditions of the worker concerned, not the average person, and the degree of proof should not be proved clearly in medical and natural science.