1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, such as accepting the judgment, is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (excluding the part on March 2, 201), except for supplementing or adding the judgment as stated in the following two paragraphs, “(at that time, the Plaintiff was almost 68 years of age)” following the second four years of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The supplementary and additional defendant asserts as follows.

The noise noise noise level in the middle of 10 to 15 years after the noise width, and the removal of the environment due to the noise width is not worse. In the case of the Plaintiff, the noise level in the middle of 20 years, while serving in the luminous part for 20 years, did not lower the honest force until September 1, 2005, and 10 years and 5 months thereafter, the noise level in the middle of 2005 was diagnosed.

In addition, in the case of noise in distress, 3 to 6k Hz shows the decline of Cheong power in 8k Hz, and Cheong power is restored from 8k Hz, and 40 kHz from low (2kHz below) to 40 dB, and 75 dB or more from high-grade (2kHz above), and in the case of the Plaintiff, 8kHz did not recover Cheong power and lower the Cheong power, and Cheong power was found to have exceeded 75dB from high-grade (2kHz above).

Therefore, in the case of the plaintiff, the characteristics of the typical elderly hearing are shown.

In addition, the plaintiff has a urology, which is a risk factor of the elderly inculatory state, and has received treatment from 2013 as "pregresses that do not accompany a complication," and there is also a possibility of causing psychological disorder among the medicines used for the disease.

As a result, the instant disposition is lawful, since it is not related to the Plaintiff’s office and business.

The following facts and circumstances, which can be recognized by the entry of Gap evidence No. 6 and the purport of the entire pleadings, are accepted as a long-term view that the removal of noise exposure does not proceed with noise exposure.