1. The Defendant’s disposition of paying unpaid insurance benefits against the Plaintiff on January 9, 2020 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the spouse of the deceased B (C life; hereinafter “the deceased”) who died on October 27, 2019.

On June 14, 2016, the Deceased was diagnosed by each of the members of DD, “Pneopic chronology, noise diversity, and e-mail (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”), and caused the instant injury and disease due to the work of the mining center.”

The Defendant filed a claim for disability benefits.

B. On September 17, 2018, the Defendant’s age on the Deceased, the period after the suspension of noise work, and the degree and type of the damaged audience seen in the degree and type of the unique results, which are difficult to be seen in the noise risk room (if the noise risk hearing alone leads to a state of a Abrupt or a war farm, it is rare that the noise risk hearing alone does not lead to a state of a Abrupt or a war farm), etc., the Defendant’s both sides of the Deceased’s disease are in a relation

It is difficult to see that disability benefits were paid on the ground of ‘the deceased’s objection, and the defendant filed a request for review to the defendant, but the deceased respectively, and the deceased filed a request for review to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Review Committee, but the above Committee dismissed it.

Then, on January 9, 2020, the Plaintiff again filed a claim for disability benefits with the Defendant. On January 9, 2020, the Defendant confirmed that the Defendant received disability benefits because it was difficult to recognize a substantial relationship with the Plaintiff with respect to the instant injury and disease, and that there was no new content. In addition, the Defendant rendered a disposition of additional payment of unpaid insurance benefits (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 6 (including various numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was exposed to high-Robbery noise while working for a long time in the E mining center, and both of them reached a full-time farming. This affect noise and aging.