logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2018.07.11 2018구단50997
장해급여부지급처분취소
Text

1. The Defendant’s disposition to pay disability benefits to the Plaintiff on February 7, 2016 is revoked.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who had worked for 23 years and eight months in total in the Korea Coal Corporation and the Korea Coal Corporation from the Korea Coal Corporation to retire on January 28, 1995.

B. On February 18, 2016, the Plaintiff received a diagnosis from the medical institution of the two sides of the dialogic dysty and noise risk (hereinafter “the instant dysty”) and claimed disability benefits to the Defendant.

C. On December 7, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition to pay disability benefits to the Plaintiff on the ground that “it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relationship between the work and the injury” on the ground that “the Plaintiff had worked for more than 85dB consecutively for more than three years, and the Plaintiff appears to work for the right-hand 71dB and the left-hand 74dB due to noise and age, etc. However, as a result of a deliberation by the Disability Determination Committee (integrated Examination Committee), it is difficult to recognize a causal relationship with the work with the office.” In full view of the work experience of the disaster in accordance with the criteria for recognizing the occupational disease of the Korea Noise and Disaster Agency, the time of suspension of the exposure to noise and the time of diagnosis, age, etc., it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relationship between the work and the injury and disease” (hereinafter

The plaintiff is dissatisfied with this and filed a review and a request for review, but it was dismissed respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff was exposed to noise while working in the mining center for about 23 years, and the instant accident occurred, and thus, the instant disposition on different premise is unlawful.

(b) Attached Form 1 of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

C. Fact-finding 1) Business place of the Plaintiff: The Korea Coal Corporation’s Chief Mining Corporation’s total working period of the year-year working period of the Korea Coal Corporation, the total working period of the year-year working from February 16, 1967 to February 26, 1973, and there is no evidence to measure noise in the category of work for which the Plaintiff worked as the Plaintiff after November 1, 1976 to January 1, 1976 to January 28, 1995, there is no evidence to measure noise in the category of work for which the Plaintiff worked.

arrow