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. From August 1, 1995 to January 1, 2010, the Plaintiff served as a non-contractual employee belonging to the private office in the Gu office, and on October 13, 2014, the Cheong-do-Jin Station’s Cheong-Jin Station under the Net History Inspection was assessed to be more than 60dB for both sides, and was diagnosed as the Cheong-gu (hereinafter “instant injury and disease”).
B. On December 18, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a claim for disability benefits for the instant injury and disease with the Defendant, but on February 23, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision on disability benefits site payment (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s work content does not constitute a noise exposure work, and there is a medical opinion that it is impossible to recognize the noise risk and does not meet the criteria for recognition of noise risk.”
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, 4, Eul evidence 1-1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. From August 1, 1995 to January 1, 2010, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was exposed to noise in the course of the plant operation using a wedding machine as a park manager, and the Plaintiff was given medical treatment under ear’s pain and ear’s name. Thus, there is no other factor that may cause the Plaintiff to suffer from a difficult noise, and thus, proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff’s business and the shop of this case is acknowledged.
Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case on a different premise is unlawful.
(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;
C. The "occupational accident" under Article 5 subparagraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to the worker's injury, disease, physical disability, or death caused by his/her occupational accident while performing his/her duties. Therefore, there should be causation between the occupational accident and the disaster, and the method and degree of proof should be proved by the assertion. The method and degree of proof must not be clearly proved by direct evidence.