1. The Defendant’s disposition of determining a disability grade against the Plaintiff on November 23, 2017 is revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From September 6, 197 to October 31, 1988, the Plaintiff (B) served as coal, digging, and mountain parts in the C Mining Complex, from July 21, 1989 to June 30, 200, from March 1, 2001 to June 30, 2009.

B. On December 23, 2015, the Plaintiff was diagnosed by each E member of the E members of the E Council with due diligence, the right-hand noise panscis, and claimed disability benefits to the Defendant on April 20, 2016.

On the other hand, on November 23, 2017, the Defendant: (a) determined the disability grade as class 14 by deeming that the Plaintiff’s hearing power constitutes “a person who could not know about the small cancellation at a distance of at least one meter;” and (b) determined that the Plaintiff’s disability grade as class 14.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

On April 17, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a request for review with the Board of Audit and Inspection, but the Board of Audit and Inspection rendered a decision dismissing the Plaintiff’s request for review on the ground that the instant disposition, which recognized a proximate causal relation with the Plaintiff’s business, is legitimate.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 to 8 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion was continuously exposed to more than 85dB noise while working in the mining center for not less than 30 years, and such noise had the same effect on both sides of the plaintiff.

Although the Defendant recognized a proximate causal relationship with the Defendant’s business solely on the left-hand ear on the ground that the Plaintiff’s right-hand ear was spawn, it is difficult to view it as a king force that may affect the king power.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case is unlawful on the premise that there is a proximate causal relation with the plaintiff's business only to the left-hand office without any reasonable ground.

B. The fact of recognition is that "the maximum noise measurement value by process for five years by mining establishments (at least 20 regular workers) in which 1 Defendant's noise-related office work standards are in operation."