1. The Defendant’s disposition to pay disability benefits to the Plaintiff on March 8, 2017 is revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 7, 1985, the Plaintiff retired from the Korea Coal Corporation B Mining Service (hereinafter “B Mining Service”) on October 27, 2015, and was diagnosed by the Yangchine Epina Maliology and the Noise and Vibration Agency (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”), and claimed disability benefits to the Defendant.

B. On March 8, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision on site pay (hereinafter “the instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff had worked for more than 85dB consecutively for more than three years at a noise workplace, and the Plaintiff appears to have served for the right-hand 85dB and the left-hand 75dB due to noise, age, etc. However, as a result of a deliberation by the Disability Determination Committee (integrated Examination Committee), it is insufficient to recognize the causal relationship with the office of the Party in trouble. In full view of the work experience of the disaster in accordance with the criteria for recognition of occupational diseases of the Korea Noise Agency, the time of suspension of exposure to noise, the time of diagnosis, age, etc., it is difficult to recognize the causal relationship between the work and the injury and disease in this case.”

C. The plaintiff filed a request for examination with the defendant, but the decision of rejection of the request was again filed with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, but the plaintiff was ordered to dismiss the request for reexamination by the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and 5 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Considering the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion is exposed to not less than 85dB noise in consecutive 85dB while working in the B Mining Complex for not less than three years, and that both sides of the Plaintiff are not less than 50dB, there is no dispute between the parties, and that it is difficult for the Defendant’s specialty and the Integrated Review Committee to exclude noise impact, the disease in this case occurred after the Plaintiff’s work in the noise business site.