장해급여부지급처분취소
1. The Defendant’s decision to pay disability benefits to the Plaintiff on October 17, 2016 is revoked.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On February 2, 2016, the Plaintiff (B) diagnosed each other’s dialogic chronology and noise risk sources (hereinafter “instant injury and disease”), and filed an application for the payment of disability benefits with the Defendant, asserting that the Plaintiff, as a mine worker, was exposed to noise in the course of digging and collecting coal and caused the instant injury and disease.
B. On October 17, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision on the disability benefit site payment to the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Plaintiff’s work experience of at least 85DB is at least three years, but the Plaintiff’s work experience is at least three years, taking into account the special diagnosis results of the hospital’s D Hospital, the Defendant’s request was made to the Integrated Review Committee of the Daegu Regional Headquarters to determine that the case falls short of the standard for both sides (which is determined as the case of both sides’
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.
In response to the instant disposition, the Plaintiff filed a request for review with the Board of Audit and Inspection. However, on June 14, 2018, the Board of Audit and Inspection dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for review on the ground that “It is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant injury or disease falls under the noise risk agency, which
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion constitutes occupational diseases caused by excessive noise exposure while digging and collecting coal as a mine worker by the Plaintiff.
(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, whether there is a proximate causal relationship between work and accident is an average person.