1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Even after examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court and the first instance court, as well as the evidence duly admitted and examined by the first instance court and the first instance court, it can be recognized that the Plaintiff had already caused noise ties on the right-hand side due to the work in the above workplace before he retires from B. However, the fact-finding and judgment by the first instance court to the purport that the occurrence of noise ties on the left-hand side cannot be recognized.

Therefore, the court's explanation on the instant case is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, i.e., “26dB” as “22dB,” and the Plaintiff's additional assertion in the trial of the court of first instance as to the Plaintiff's additional assertion, as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, i.e., Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on addition

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion added at the trial room is that the Plaintiff had worked for 38 years at the noise workplace in B, and had worked at I’s noise workplace in November 6, 2016 after withdrawal from the noise workplace in B, and the Plaintiff’s hearing ability has recently deteriorated, and the Plaintiff has a considerable difficulty in his/her daily life even if he/she wears hearing aids on both sides. Thus, the Plaintiff’s left-hand noise-related hearing room is deemed to have aggravated due to the noise environment in B, which was already reproduced due to the noise in the previous workplace.

Therefore, the disposition of this case which did not recognize the degree of disability of the noise hearing for the left-hand side of the plaintiff should be revoked because it is unlawful.

B. We examine the judgment. The plaintiff asserted that the noise department of noise in B worked for 38 years at the noise department of December 11, 2017, after retirement from B on November 16, 2016, and that the noise from both return occurred, and that the plaintiff claimed disability benefits to the defendant.