1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 14, 2016, the Plaintiff (B) was diagnosed by each of the following: (a) a person who was engaged in the work of collecting coal and mine pit in the mining stations, such as Ctane; and (b) a person who was diagnosed by each of the instant disease at the D Hospital (hereinafter “instant disease”).

B. On January 6, 2017, the Plaintiff claimed disability benefits to the Defendant on the ground that the instant injury constituted an occupational disease caused by the exposure of noise in the mining establishment.

C. On January 28, 2019, the Defendant decided to pay disability benefit site by citing the following reasons: “(67dB/63dB on each side of the following grounds: 64% on each side of the dialogic Spence (six-minuteic Cheongneical Cheongneical Cheongneical Cheongnephathathatha of six-minutes); and(64% on each side; 64% on each side; 78 years of age (78 years of age); (26 years of age); and (5) the period after the suspension of the noise exposure (including about 26 years of age); and (4) the type of Cheongne which appears in the hearing of the result of the special diagnosis, the Defendant cannot verify the characteristics of the lue Cheongne’s noise in the past.”

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

On May 13, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a petition for review with the Defendant against the instant disposition. However, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s petition for review on the ground that the instant disposition was lawful, deeming that “the Plaintiff’s hearing ability is inconsistent with the characteristics of noise-related hearing and that it was lower in relation to the Plaintiff’s work when comprehensively considering the Plaintiff’s age and period after suspension of noise exposure.”

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion was continuously exposed to more than 85dB noise while working in the mining center for a long time. Even if part of the disease of this case was involved by the elderly in the accident of this case, there is a proximate causal relation between the work and the work of this case as long as it is recognized that the elderly worker was engaged in the accident of this case.