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 November 27, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a claim for disability benefits with the Defendant on the ground that the “near in both sides” was diagnosed as a result of long-term work at the workplace where noise was produced, as a worker affiliated with B, at the workplace where noise was produced.

B. On November 27, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition of disability benefit site pay (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the prosecutor’s reliability is away from danger (a false hearing) as a result of a special medical examination conducted twice against the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3, Eul evidence 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. As a result of the inspection conducted by the Plaintiff’s Cheongwon, the Plaintiff’s Cheong power loss incurred to the right is 86.7dB, and the left-hand side is 80dB, and the Plaintiff’s disability grade constitutes at least class 7 subparag. 2.

Nevertheless, since the defendant decided not to pay disability benefits on the ground that it is a dangerous office, the disposition of this case is unlawful.

B. Since occupational accidents determined by the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refer to the disease, injury, etc. of workers due to occupational causes, there should be a proximate causal relation between the occupational and disease, etc. In such cases, the causal relation between the employee’s occupational and disease, etc. should be proved by the assertion thereof.

Meanwhile, Article 34(3) [Attachment 3] Item 7 Item (j) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 29354, Dec. 11, 2018) which provides a specific standard for recognition of occupational diseases shall be construed as “hyneological distress for at least three consecutive years” with regard to noise in distress, and “hyneological disorder for at least 85dB,” and “hyneical disorder for at least three consecutive years,” and “hyneical disorder for at least 40dB, and there is no obvious change in the form of hyne or gravity, and as a result of the inspection of pulse ability, there is no obvious difference between the hyneical vision and the gyneical calendar.