1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. A. On May 24, 2016, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “niver mixative lusium and both sides’ noise noise pansium” by the National Institute of Native Technology (BBF).

B. On May 18, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a claim for disability benefits with the Defendant for disability benefits on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have worked at a noise workplace for at least three (3) years, on the ground that the Plaintiff could not be deemed to have worked at the noise site, if the Plaintiff continued to be exposed to noise during approximately twenty (20) years of work at the coal and digging division.

C. The Plaintiff filed a request for review of the instant disposition with the Board of Audit and Inspection, but on July 24, 2018, the Board of Audit and Inspection dismissed the request for review based on the medical opinion of the Defendant advisory opinion that the period for which the Plaintiff was deemed to have worked at the noise workplace was two years and eight months, and that the Plaintiff’s net performance test shows the type of senior citizens.

[Judgment of the court below] Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff continued to be exposed to noise during the process of collecting coal and digging for 20 years in C, etc., and caused the occurrence of difficulties.

Therefore, the instant disposition issued on a different premise should be revoked as it is unlawful.

B. In light of the following circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that there was a proximate causal relationship between the occurrence of an infertility and the Plaintiff’s work, and there is no evidence otherwise.

Therefore, the disposition of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff's assertion disputing it is without merit.

(1) Under the delegation of Article 37(3) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 14933, Oct. 24, 2017), specific criteria for recognition of occupational accidents are prescribed.