2017Nu54328 The revocation of the revocation of the disposition to pay disability benefits.

A

The Government Employees Pension Service

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2016Gudan65001 decided May 18, 2017

November 16, 2017

December 7, 2017

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

On May 10, 2016, the Defendant’s disposition on disability benefit site payment against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Partial citement of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows: (a) from the date of the judgment of this court, “1. 2. Disposition is legitimate; (b) the summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion; (c) the relevant laws and regulations; and (c) the relevant parts of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (from 2. 2 to 7. 4 pages and from 11 to 17 pages). Therefore, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act; and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts that vary from the judgment of the first instance court;

any change or addition.

○ It is replaced by “ September 9, 2016.” with “ August 30, 2016.” of 3 pages 1 and 2 lines of the first instance judgment.

○ The fourth 19 lines of the judgment of the court of first instance are replaced by “outer salt” of the said 19 lines.

○ The 5th 18th 18th son of the first instance judgment, and the 7th st son of the 7th st son of these courts are replaced by “the court of first instance” respectively.

○ The following shall be added to 7th sentence of the first instance court:

【6) As a result of fact-finding with the Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency of this Court on the Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency, the noise level which may cause the noise level 85dB is at least 10dB, and the noise level is at least 10dB when working for 250 days (8 hours/day, 250 days/years). The Cheong power loss is the highest in 4kHz, and there has been Cheong power loss in the order of 3, 6, 8, 2, 1kHz and 500 Hz. The effect of the Cheong power loss of less than 80dB may be disregarded. The shock noise level is the major factor that affects the highest value, continued time, occurrence between occurrence and frequency of occurrence.

As an occupational disease under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, there are symptoms or opinions of the pnematic chronological chronological chronological chronological chronological chronological chronological chronological chronological chronological chronological chronological chronological chronological chronological chronological chronological chronological chronological chronological chronological chronological chronological chronological chronological chronological chronological chronological chronological chronological chronological chronological chronronological chronological chronological chronological chronological chronological chronological chronological chronological chronological chronological chronological chronological chronological chronological chronological chronological chronrons, senior chron chronic chronological chronic chron.

There was almost no research on the intensity of general telephone noise and frequencies systematically. However, in some studies, the intensity and frequency of the telephone and the mobile phone noise were examined, and in the case of the wire telephone, the frequency of 200 to 3,400 H was used, and the negative pressure level was 40 to 80dB level. In the case of the mobile phone, the frequency used was similar, and the negative pressure level was 50 to 100dB level higher than that of the wire phone. The sound source used in this study could be different depending on the type of the negative source by the weather broadcasting.

There was almost no studies on the general telephone noise and noise distress. However, in some studies, the negative pressure of the excursion telephone was not at least 80dB, but at least 120dB. However, in this study, the negative pressure of the excursion telephone was measured at maximum thorium by using weather broadcasting as a negative source, and the negative pressure level can vary depending on the situation of uriuriium, etc.

(7) The result of this court's inquiry about the hearing of the court

Since the maximum volume of sound when a normal person reaches a sound depends on reference literature 110dB, the maximum volume of sound that can be seen as 110dB, which can be seen as 110dB, but the sound equipment such as telephone, etc. has many cases where it is restricted in the output of the transmitted sound, so it can be seen as the maximum volume of sound that must be confirmed in the manufacture of the relevant telephone machine.

The noise of 110dB may be caused by continuous exposure to noise, and the noise limit permitted by a person working for 8 hours a day in the noise environment at the workplace of Korea is within 30 minutes from the noise of 110dB. However, it cannot be known that the telephone sign is printed up to 110dB, and even if it is output up to 110dB, it is not possible to continuously maintain 110dB sound. However, the degree of damage of the hearing organ to noise is large, so it cannot be said that there is no damage to the noise that the noise was 110dB sound within 30 minutes, or that the noise was 110dB more or less.

Normally, it is known that the conversation has been distributed in 60 to 95dB, and it is difficult to say that the normal conversation has frequently been kept in the hedging, and that there is a noise risk. Even if the high frequency of large sounds falls short of frequency, it is determined that there is a higher possibility of a noise risk.

Although there are differences depending on the degree of noise and the time of exposure to noise, 110dB is a strength that may cause a theoretical difficulty in noise under the premise that the output of the relevant telephone comes up to 110dB.

The result of the net impact test presented in the record of the obligation to make a recommendation is the 10dB-type dedicated to the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and right and the right and right and the right and right and the right and right and the right and right and the right and right and the right and the right and right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right

Although there is a possibility that noise in the light of the maximum size may occur, the result of the plaintiff's net noise test cannot be said to be a typical form of noise in the hearing.

○ 3 lines of the 7th judgment of the first instance court are as follows: “In the result, the result of the fact inquiry to the Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency of this court, the result of the fact inquiry to the Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency of this Court, is added.”

2. Parts that vary from the judgment of the first instance court;

D. Determination

1) A public official’s disease is a disease that occurred during the performance of his/her official duty and has a causal relationship between the official duty and the disease. The causal relationship must be proved by direct evidence. The method and degree of proof does not necessarily have to be clearly proved by direct evidence. It is sufficient if it is proved to the extent that the proximate causal relationship between the official duty and the disease can be inferred by indirect facts, such as the health condition at the time of employment, existence of an existing disease, the nature of the work and the working environment of the pertinent public official, and whether the disease occurred in the same workplace (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Nu6103, Sept. 6, 196; 2004Du5324, Aug. 20, 2004). The method and degree of proof does not necessarily have to be proved by direct evidence, and it is not directly presumed to have been caused by a disease in the course of official duty (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du25880, Apr. 113).

2) In light of the following circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize that the instant injury and disease was caused by noise exposure in the course of performing duties, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

① The Korea Occupational Safety and Health Institute replys that “The level of noise that may cause the noise from the noise level is at least 85dB, and the noise level is at least 10dDB inside and outside 10dB when working for a maximum of 10 years (8 hours/day, 250 days/year) and may disregard the impact of the noise level below 80dB.” Accordingly, there is a possibility that noise level may occur if the noise level is exposed to more than 85dB for a certain period. However, there is no objective evidence on the size and degree of exposure of noise exposed to the Plaintiff in the course of performing his/her duties.

(2) The Korea Occupational Safety and Health Institute replys to the fact that the negative pressure of an excursion ship telephone was not at least 80dB in part of the study that "the negative pressure of the excursion ship telephone was not at a level of 110dB," and the Korea Occupational Safety and Health Institute replys to the fact that "the maximum amount of the sound that can be heard by the telephone operator is 110dB when the ordinary people reach the sound, so the maximum amount of the sound can be seen as 110dB, but there are many cases where the sound equipment such as the telephone operator is subject to restrictions on the output of the transmitted sound, so it can be seen as the maximum amount of the sound of the sound that can be confirmed by verifying the restriction on output of the relevant telephone manufacturing. However, it is impossible to find that the telephone output is at least possible to continuously maintain 110dB sound even if it is output up to 110dB," and there is no objective evidence to prove that the Plaintiff’s continuous noise of the telephone call that the Plaintiff is exposed.

③ Even if the departments where the Plaintiff had worked were related to many civil petitioners and the departments with a large portion of telephone service, the Plaintiff, who was an administrative officer, was in the position of the manager, such as the value-added tax leader and the office chief of the civil petition service office, is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff performed only the telephone counseling service. Furthermore, there is no evidence to presume that the portion of the telephone service among the Plaintiff’s entire duties was a certain portion of the telephone service.

④ The Defendant’s Public Official Pension Benefit Council (hereinafter “Public Official Pension Benefit Council”) presented that the instant injury and disease is presumed to have been caused by multiple factors, which are not clearly revealed as to the taking of drugs in accordance with the prescription and medical care for a long period of time, and that the first instance court’s appraisal is likely to be peculiar in a state where it is difficult to accurately identify the cause of the injury and danger when examining the record of obligations of the Plaintiff.

⑤ Since the Korea Youth Association has a high tendency to mainly use the daily side when a person uses a telephone, if the noise has contributed to the Plaintiff’s difficulties, it is more likely that a serious trouble may occur on the daily side. The Plaintiff’s results of the Plaintiff’s net noise impact test are both sides (within 10dB deemed to be an error within the range of error). Although noise in the maximum size might occur due to the high level of noise, the outcome of the Plaintiff’s net noise impact test cannot be considered as a typical form of noise by noise.

3) Therefore, there is no proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff’s official duties and the injury and disease of this case. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair, so the defendant's appeal is accepted and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as per Disposition.

Judge Do charter of judge

Judges Kim Uniform-type

Judges Nam Yang Yang-woo