1. The Defendant’s disposition of determining a disability grade against the Plaintiff on May 3, 2018 shall be revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From February 26, 1979 to June 12, 1984, the Plaintiff (B) served as the collection line line from the Korea Coal Corporation Korea Coal Corporation's steel mine for about five years and four years, and from July 9, 1984 to July 11, 1994, the Plaintiff (B) served as the collection line line from the Korea Coal Corporation's Private Mining Center for about ten years.

B. On May 30, 2017, the Plaintiff received disability diagnosis from D Council members located in Thai-si to “Sechopathic chronological chronology, pseudonym, and noise risk,” and filed a claim for disability benefits with the Defendant on June 2, 2017.

C. On May 3, 2018, the Defendant decided the Plaintiff’s disability grade No. 14 subparag. 1 (the person who could not look at the small cancellation rate in a distance of not less than one meter from the highest right office) on the ground that “The Plaintiff’s work was confirmed to have been in the middle mining center, etc. for not less than three years in total, but the Defendant’s request for deliberation at the Integrated Examination Committee of the Seoul Seoul Regional Headquarters to the Seoul Regional Headquarters, which is the opinion that “it is insufficient to recognize the causal relationship with the work, and that the right side (48dB) is recognized as the causal relationship with the work,” and that there is a proximate causal relation with the work only at the right side office.”

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

On September 11, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a request for a review against the instant disposition with the Defendant. However, on September 11, 2018, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s request for a review by the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Review Committee that “The Plaintiff’s disability grade is class 1 of class 14, and is confirmed to the right 48dB on the basis of the Plaintiff’s special diagnosis, and the left-hand 46dB on the left-hand side, but it is difficult to find a proximate causal relation with the Defendant’s duty of hearing on the left-hand side when comprehensively considering the degree and the result of the hearing.” The Plaintiff’s “a person whose average loss of hearing power on the left-hand side is not less than 40dB but less than 70dB,” and the Plaintiff’s “a person whose hearing power is not less than one meter in a single return,”

On November 9, 2018, the Plaintiff is the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Review Committee.