1. The Defendant’s disposition of providing disability benefits to the Plaintiff on May 14, 2019 is revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 15, 2015, the Plaintiff (B) diagnosed the “Bomic chronological chronology,” and claimed disability benefits to the Defendant by asserting that the instant injury was caused by the work of the mining center.

B. On November 29, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision to pay disability benefits to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff is found to have worked for more than three consecutive years at a noise business site of not less than 85dB, but considering that the considerable period of time has elapsed after retirement, the Defendant’s decision to pay disability benefits on the ground that the Plaintiff’s request for deliberation to the Integrated Review Committee according to the opinion of the special medical examination that it is difficult to accurately distinguish whether the nearological disorder is a noise defect or an elderly defect, and that it is insufficient to deem that the present accident occurred due to work, and therefore, the causal relationship with the work of the instant branch cannot be recognized.”

C. On May 14, 2019, the Plaintiff again filed a claim for disability benefits with the Defendant, and the Defendant rendered a decision on the disability benefits site payment (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that the result of a review by the Integrated Review Committee was “o’s opinion that it was insufficient to recognize the causal relationship with the office in distress.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3 and 4 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion is necessary to meet all the requirements set forth in subparagraph 7 (j) of attached Table 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, such as where the plaintiff worked as a mining source for about 10 years from around 1965 to around 1975 in D Mining Station, etc., and all of both sides of whom are 40 dB or more as a result of the inspection of sound records, and where a proximate causal relation exists between the business branch of this case and the plaintiff's business, the defendant's disposition of this case on different premise should be revoked illegally.

B. Determination 1.