1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On September 9, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for disability benefits by asserting that “the noise was continuously exposed to each other in the course of mining and coal work,” but the Defendant did not accept the claim on the ground that the suffering from the Plaintiff’s return was not due to continuous noise exposure but due to natural progress (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence No. 1, and the purport of whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion was exposed to noise for a long time in the course of digging through B, etc. for not less than 30 years, and it was clear that the noise occurred to both you. The disposition of this case issued on different premise is unlawful and must be revoked.

B. The term “occupational accident” under Article 5 subparag. 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to the injury, disease, physical disability, or death of an employee who was caused by his/her duties during the performance of his/her duties. As such, there should be causation between the duties and the occurrence of the accident, and the causal relationship must be attested by the party

Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 4-1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 1-2, and the whole purport of the argument in the medical record appraisal request to the head of the Ariju University Hospital of this Court can be seen as follows. ① The Ariju Complex of Noise shows the process of accelerating that the Criness is no longer rapidly increased, and it is no longer proceeding or aggravation after leaving the noise environment. On the other hand, the Arisung Complex of the Aged appeared in the first stage of the Ariju Complex of the 191, while the Ariju Complex of the 191, the plaintiff left the place of business of exposure to noise, and the plaintiff is weak.