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 April 1, 1999, the Plaintiff filed a claim for disability benefits with the Defendant on April 29, 2013, on the ground that he/she was diagnosed by the Noise and D&D Agency (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”) on the right side due to being exposed to long-term noise after becoming a member of the B medical machine industry company (hereinafter “Nonindicted company”).

B. On June 14, 2013, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition that did not pay disability benefits to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the company outside the country cannot be deemed as a noise workplace, and ear’s Cheong’s Cheong’s Cheong-do Cheong’s Cheong-do Ha was less than 40dB, thus falling short of the criteria for recognition of disability grade of

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On October 6, 2010, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was diagnosed as having been exposed to the noise environment for 15 years in the working environment exposed to noise, etc., and was diagnosed as having been suffering from difficult opinions in the direction of right ear in the high field.

Therefore, there is a proximate causal link with the Plaintiff’s work exposed to noise, and also conforms to the criteria for recognition of disability benefits for the degree of loss of hearing ability by the Plaintiff’s right-hand side. Thus, the instant disposition that did not pay disability benefits is unlawful.

B. Fact-finding 1) On April 1, 1999, the Plaintiff joined the non-party company that manufactures medical machinery and equipment on April 1, 199 and worked as an on-site employee. The on-site employee of the non-party company was up to nine working hours from 08:30 to 17:30, and worked for five days a week.

B. The work process of the non-party company is composed of “a cutting, shock, melting, powdering, and assembly,” and the plaintiff mainly performed other duties while in charge of the melting work, and the plaintiff did not wear ear caps even before receiving the diagnosis by the disease of this case.