1. The Defendant’s disposition to pay disability benefits to the Plaintiff on February 20, 2019 is revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. During the period from July 1970 to October 12, 1972, the Plaintiff (B) performed the work of digging (five months) and collecting coal (one year) at the Korea Coal Corporation's Do mining center. From September 1974 to August 1983, the Plaintiff (B) performed the work of digging (one month), mining (one year and five months), coal (one year and five months), and digging (one year and eight months) at the D mining center of the Korea Coal Corporation. From January 1, 1988 to October 10, 198, the work was commenced at the F Mining Station of the E Company for a period of one year and four months from February 1 to 191.

[Plaintiffs asserted that they worked for the digging division from September 1, 1983 to December 1, 1987 at the above F mining center, but Gap evidence 7 through 10 (if available, including the number number; hereinafter the same shall apply).

(B) each entry alone is not sufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

On January 12, 2016, the Plaintiff claimed disability benefits to the Defendant on May 19, 2017, after having received disability diagnosis from the I medical clinic located in Thai-si to “the both sides dialogic chronological chronological chronological chronological chronological chronological chronological chronological chronological s

C. On February 20, 2019, the Defendant requested a specialized investigation, along with the results of a special medical examination of the office in distress and relevant data, and on the ground that “the relationship between the Plaintiff’s office and the office in distress is insufficient when considering the natural honest loss, etc. after the interruption of noise.” Therefore, the Plaintiff’s office did not have a proximate causal relationship with the office, and thus, issued a disability benefit payment disposition (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that it does not constitute an occupational disease.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, 6, 8, 10, Eul evidence 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was exposed to more than 85dB noise while performing duties such as digging throughout approximately 13 years at the Korea Coal Corporation’s Dom Mining Center, etc., and thereby, the occurrence of noise hazards.

The plaintiff.