logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2019.11.13 2019구단50390
장해급여부지급처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who worked in the mountain, etc. in B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant workplace”) from June 27, 1973 to June 23, 1987 and from January 1, 198 to November 30, 1989.

The Plaintiff asserted on November 10, 2015, as a result of exposure to noise while working in the instant workplace, that “nickeral chronological dynasty, noise dynasty, and immigration (hereinafter “instant injury”) was diagnosed, and claimed disability benefits for the instant injury and disease to the Defendant on January 22, 2016.

B. However, on January 16, 2018, the Defendant rendered a decision that the Plaintiff would not pay disability benefits claimed by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”) based on the results of the examination by the Integrated Examination Committee of the Seoul Regional Headquarters, stating that “the Plaintiff has worked for at least 85dB noise places for at least three years, but it is difficult to recognize the causal relationship with the instant upper branch.”

C. The Plaintiff filed a petition for review against the instant disposition, but the petition for review was dismissed on May 23, 2018, and the petition for review was filed again, but the petition for review was dismissed on October 4, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 8, and 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff had been exposed to more than 85dB noise for more than three consecutive years while working in the instant workplace, which is a noise business place, and there was no details of occurrence of any other disease that may cause the Plaintiff to listen to, other than noise, etc., the disease of this case conforms to the criteria for recognition of noise in light of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “Industrial Accident Insurance Act”).

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case made on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Plaintiffs 1. The fact of recognition (medical opinions, etc.)

arrow