1. The Defendant’s disposition of disability benefit site payment rendered to the Plaintiff on July 22, 2019 shall be revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 15, 2016, the Plaintiff (B) diagnosed an “hneneneneal dynasty, noise-causing station” (hereinafter “the instant injury”) in the “C Council” and filed an application for the payment of disability benefits with the Defendant, asserting that the Plaintiff, as a mine worker, was exposed to noise in the course of performing the work of collecting, digging, lighting, etc., and caused the instant injury and disease by exposure to noise.

B. On July 22, 2019, the Defendant decided the Plaintiff’s disability benefit site on the ground of the Consolidated Review Board’s opinion that “it is insufficient to deem the Plaintiff to have suffered difficulties due to his/her duties (no disability grade).”

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

On September 18, 2019, the Plaintiff appealed to the instant disposition and filed the instant lawsuit.

【Ground of recognition】 The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion constitutes occupational disease caused by the Plaintiff’s excessive noise while working as a mine worker.

(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

C. 1) In order to recognize a disease due to an occupational reason as stipulated in Article 5 subparag. 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, there is a proximate causal relation between the pertinent disease and the disease. However, the existence of proximate causal relation between the business and the accident should be determined based on the health and physical conditions of the relevant employee, not the average person, rather than the average person. The degree of proof should not be clearly proven in medical and natural science, and it should be deemed that there is proof even in cases where there is a proximate causal relation between the business and the disaster, considering all the circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 200, Mar. 9, 2006).