1. On December 22, 2016, the Defendant’s decision to pay disability benefits to the Plaintiff is revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 11, 2016, the Plaintiff (B) was diagnosed by each of the following: (a) Machine chronology and Machine chronology (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”).

The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff was exposed to noise in the course of digging and digging as a mine worker, and that the disease of this case occurred, and applied for the payment of disability benefits to the defendant.

B. On December 22, 2016, the Defendant decided on the Plaintiff’s disability benefit site payment on the ground that “The Plaintiff’s work in the environment of noise, such as coal mines in the past is confirmed to have worked for a long time, and the noise generated during the work of without coal, etc. constitutes noise level of at least 85dB. However, since 1996, the noise-related work site did not have any capacity to work after 1996, and the present Cheongdo was normal in terms of the general lecture examination records in 2010-2013, and the current Cheongdo was close to the elderly in terms of the form of Cheongdo, it is difficult to view that the cause under the Cheongdo was due to noise, considering a majority of the members

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

On February 22, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a request for review with the Board of Audit and Inspection, but the Board of Audit and Inspection dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for review.

【Non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7 (including each number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion constitutes occupational disease caused by the Plaintiff’s exposure to excessive noise while digging and digging throughout the Plaintiff’s mine as a mine worker.

(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

C. In order to recognize a disease due to an occupational reason stipulated in Article 5 subparag. 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, there should be a proximate causal link between the occupational and the disease, which was caused by the pertinent disease.