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

A. On April 21, 2015, the Plaintiff, a person who was retired on or around December 21, 2015, while serving as a mining source in the C Mining Center B, was diagnosed as “Magnenenene Danene and Noise Disturbing Agency” (hereinafter “instant injury and disease”), and claimed disability benefits for the instant injury and disease to the Defendant around that time.

B. On July 29, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition to pay disability benefits on the ground that the right to claim disability benefits with respect to the instant injury has expired by prescription, and the Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for examination. Based on the Supreme Court decision regarding the timing of cure of noise damage, the Defendant recommended the Plaintiff to withdraw the request for examination, and the Plaintiff voluntarily withdrawn the request.

C. After that, on March 21, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition to pay disability benefits to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the disaster victim had worked for more than 85dB consecutively for more than three years, but all from the date of departure from the noise workplace and the date of diagnosis of the disability in the previous D non-humanistice medical department, the claim for disability benefits after the lapse of three years from the date of extinctive prescription, as well as from the result of medical advice on the special diagnosis of the noise in the state of the disaster, the medical advice of the disaster regarding the outcome of the each of the visual disorder in the state of the defect in the state of noise, the degree of the defect in the state of each of the noise and the degree of the defect in the state of their own ability is unclear, and the degree of the defect in the state of their own ability is higher than the possibility of hearing due to any other cause than the noise defect.”

On July 26, 2017, the Plaintiff again filed a claim for disability benefits for the instant injury and disease with the Defendant, and on August 7, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition against the Plaintiff to pay disability benefits for the same reasons as that stated in the preceding paragraph (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 2, 3.