1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 29, 2015, the Plaintiff (B) diagnosed “C Non-Afinite,” and on September 3, 2015, filed an application for payment of disability benefits (hereinafter “first application”) with the Defendant by asserting that the Plaintiff was exposed to noise during the Plaintiff’s work as a digging hole from coal mines for about 19 years.

B. On April 28, 2017, the Defendant determined the Plaintiff’s disability benefit site level on the ground that “The Plaintiff’s objectively confirmed noise exposure experience meets at least three years prescribed by the relevant statutes, but the Defendant’s request for deliberation by the integrated review agency for deliberation shows that it seems that the causal relationship between the instant upper branch and the instant upper branch seems insufficient to be established in light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s request for deliberation was serious for the lower class, age, and the suspension period of exposure to noise for 25 years, etc., and it is difficult to find proximate causal relationship between the work and the instant injury and disease

On October 19, 2018, the Board of Audit and Inspection dismissed the plaintiff's request for examination on the grounds that the plaintiff is dissatisfied with the above disposition.

C. Since then, the Plaintiff applied for payment of disability benefits to the Defendant for the same reason as the initial application.

On January 25, 2019, the Defendant decided on the Plaintiff’s disability benefit site on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s failure to verify the right 72.5dB as a result of the inspection of sound records, but the left 74.1dB on the left 74.1dB as a result of the deliberation by the Integrated Review Agency, the Plaintiff’s failure to reach the right 6.6dB at the time when the Plaintiff was judged as a failure of hearing in 1991, and then, it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relationship between the work and the injury of this case, as the Plaintiff’s failure to reach the noise level.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). 【Unsatisfy ground for recognition”, Gap’s evidence Nos. 2, 4, 5, and Eul’s evidence No. 2.