1. The Defendant’s disposition to pay disability benefits to the Plaintiff on January 4, 2019 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From April 1, 1976 to July 9, 1990, the Plaintiff (B) was diagnosed as a person who worked as a luminous source in Ctan, etc., and on August 18, 2015, the Plaintiff (B) claimed disability benefits to the Defendant on December 14, 2017, after receiving a diagnosis of the “bregal chronological dynassis and noise dynassis (hereinafter “the instant injury”).

B. On January 4, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition to pay disability benefits (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s submission of documents, personal history information, etc. is confirmed to the effect that the applicant’s office objectively recognized is about nine years and nine months. As a result of the special diagnosis, it is the view that there is a mixture of senior citizens’ office and noise distress. As a result of the deliberation by the integrated examination agency for the determination of obstacles in the Daejeon area, the left-hand 83dB, and the 83dB office’s scriptive hearing on the right-hand side, but it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relation with the Plaintiff’s office.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s argument that the Plaintiff’s hearing falls under the noise-related distress caused by the noise generated from coal mine operations, or that caused the current state due to the damage of the sensical disorder by noise, which led to the progress of the senior citizens’ distress beyond the natural progress speed, and there is a proximate causal relation between the business of the instant upper branch and the instant case.

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

B. Facts 1) The Plaintiff’s contents and duration of the Plaintiff’s duties were D from April 1976 to August 1976, 1976, from January 6, 1979 to March 5, 1983, from E mining stations to November 29, 1984 to February 6, 1985, from Fantan to Fantan; from February 14, 1986 to February 27, 1986, from D to June 3, 1987 to June 3, 198; and from July 8, 198 to October 30, 198, respectively.