1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From August 1, 2000 to February 28, 2009, the Plaintiff (B) works as the coal mine in the Taebae Mining Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Non-Party”) from Taebae Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Non-Party”) to the coal mine.

The retirement was made.

B. On April 30, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a claim for disability benefits with the Defendant, claiming that “the noise was continuously exposed to each other while working in a company outside the country, and caused a defect to each other.” On August 10, 2009, the Defendant rendered a disposition not to accept the Plaintiff’s claim for disability benefits on the ground that the degree of the Plaintiff’s hearing loss of the Plaintiff’s right-hand return on August 10, 2009 falls short of the disability grade standard 33dB, the left return’s hearing loss level falls short of the disability grade standard 38dB (hereinafter “previous disposition”).

C. On July 16, 2015, the Plaintiff received diagnosis from each of the following sources of Mali-Mali-Mali-Mali-Mali-Mali-Mali-Mali-Mali-Mali-Mali-Mali-Mali-Mali-Mali-Mali-Mali-Mali-Ma (hereinafter “Mali-Mali-Mali-Mali-Mali-Mali-Mali-Mali-Mali-Mali-Mali-Mali-Mali-Mali-Mali-Mali-Mali-Mali

However, the Defendant rendered a disposition not to accept the Plaintiff’s claim for disability benefits (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s claim for disability benefits was terminated after the lapse of three years from the time when the Plaintiff retired from the non-party company ( February 28, 2009) or the first disability diagnosis was conducted ( April 16, 2009).”

On February 3, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a petition for review with the Defendant against the instant disposition. The Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s petition for review on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s right to claim disability benefits has expired by prescription, as well as the Plaintiff’s symptoms return to both sides are not related to the Plaintiff’s business.”

The plaintiff filed a request for reexamination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, but was dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, 3, 4, Eul's 1, 2, 5, and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion is below.