1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the spouse of the deceased B (CB) (hereinafter “the deceased”) on March 20, 2017.

On June 28, 2016, the Deceased filed a claim for disability benefits with the Defendant by asserting that the instant injury was diagnosed, and that the instant injury was caused due to his/her work in the mining center, in the area of Dronology (hereinafter “the instant injury”).

B. On September 11, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition on the payment of disability benefits for the reason that it is irrelevant to the noise state hearing (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on September 1, 2017, considering that the Plaintiff’s “as a result of consultation, 30 years have elapsed after retirement from the age and noise workplace,” the Defendant’s view that it is difficult to determine the noise state hearing due to the lack of an inspection through legitimate process to recognize the noise state hearing, and that the hearing ability of the low frequency zone has deteriorated even as a result of the deliberation by the integrated examination council, as it is difficult to exclude the possibility of the elderly state’s distress, etc.

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for review with the Board of Audit and Inspection, but the Board of Audit and Inspection dismissed the request for review on April 29, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 6 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion meets the requirements set forth in the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act due to exposure to noise exceeding 85dB while working for about 30 years in the E Mining Center, etc., and there are no other circumstances to deem that the injury or disease in the instant case is not a noise risk.

Nevertheless, the defendant's disposition of this case on a different premise should be revoked in an unlawful manner.

B. According to the facts that there is no dispute over judgment 1, and the statements in Gap evidence 1 and 2, the deceased worked in E Mining Facility as a mining source from January 1, 1956 to December 31, 1986 and above 85dB.