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

A. On April 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that “from 1972 to 2006, the Plaintiff contracted for disability benefits to the Defendant that “from the 1972 to 2006, she was exposed to noise due to exposure to noise such as the two-way noise state and two-way name “the two-way noise state” (hereinafter “the instant injury state”).

B. On July 5, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition on the payment of disability benefits (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the effect that “the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have been exposed to more than 85dB noise for more than three years, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff failed to meet the criteria for recognition of occupational diseases as prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act. In addition, as a result of the special medical examination conducted by the Plaintiff on April 10, 2006 by claiming disability benefits, both you were subject to a disposition on the payment of disability benefits according to the opinion that both you are noise in 30dB noise, and there is no subsequent noise work place, and in the case of noise in the state of noise in distress, it is no longer aggravated if they exceeded the noise business place, and thus there is no proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff’s emotional loss and business.”

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the request for examination, but was dismissed on October 13, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion has worked for a long period of time with serious noise exposure, and the loss of hearing power by the plaintiff is a part by the elderly suffering difficulties, but the part by noise is large.

Therefore, even though the injury or disease of this case occurred due to the plaintiff's work, the disposition of this case which did not recognize it as an occupational disease is unlawful.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. Facts 1) The plaintiff's work contents and noise exposure experience as D residents are as follows. The plaintiff's work contents and noise exposure experience are as D residents from July 1, 1978 to January 30, 2006. The plaintiff's work contents and sanctions are as follows.