1. The Defendant’s disposition of paying disability benefits to the Plaintiff on June 22, 2015 is revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 1, 1999, the Plaintiff entered a company B (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) and was diagnosed by the Noise and Emergency (hereinafter “the instant injury”) on the left-hand side due to the long-term exposure to noise, thereby claiming disability benefits to the Defendant on April 28, 2015.

B. On June 22, 2015, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition that did not pay disability benefits to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the company outside the country does not fall under the criteria for recognition of noise in the workplace.”

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

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff worked for 15 years in the working environment exposed to noise, etc., and was diagnosed on October 2010 as having been exposed to the noise environment as a result of the medical examination conducted by the Indones University Busan White Hospital and the Gan University Dental Hospital, etc.

Therefore, there is a proximate causal link with the Plaintiff’s work exposed to noise, and the disposition of this case, which did not pay disability benefits in light of the above, is unlawful, since it also conforms to the criteria for recognition of disability benefits for the degree of loss of hearing power by the Plaintiff’s left-hand side.

B. 1) On April 1, 1999, the Plaintiff joined the non-party company that manufactures medical machinery and tools 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 consists of “a cutting, shock, melting, powdering, and assembly,” and the plaintiff mainly performed other duties while in charge of the contact with the Plaintiff, and did work without wearing ear caps separately until the disease was diagnosed as the disease of this case (C).